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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I agree completely.

But why only call for the Bush Administration to be brought up on charges?

Like I said, we would have to dig as far back as possible and bring all living politicians who have ever been involved in torture to stand trial.

But from what I have seen on here people are only interested in charging the previous administration.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Until we get someone with the authority to make a ruling on whether or not it's torture to actually do so, all this will amount to is partisan bickering. And once they do, the entire thing is ex post facto, meaning no one will be prosecuted.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by johnsky
 


I agree completely.

But why only call for the Bush Administration to be brought up on charges?

Like I said, we would have to dig as far back as possible and bring all living politicians who have ever been involved in torture to stand trial.

But from what I have seen on here people are only interested in charging the previous administration.





People seem to be intent on charging the previous administration because there is so much evidence showing that they tortured. I have searched around and cannot find any evidence that either Clinton, Carter or Bush Sr. had authorized torture during their presidencies. If you can present that evidence, then it would only be right to call for their administrations' prosecutions as well.

You have to remember that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were established under Bush Jr, and these are the primary locations where torture incidents (at least recorded) have occurred. Again, bring forth some evidence of other living president's authorization of torture, and it will only be fair to prosecute them as well.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


You have to take into the account of the amount of cameras that are present now. They are everywhere compared to even 10 years ago.

Will it be harder to find evidence for past administrations? Of course it will be. But we cannot be naive enough to think that it didn't occur. Thats why I said that we would have to treat the Government as a buisness and dig back through the years, a kind of audit.

If they do this and we find that the past 4 Presidents and their Administrations hands are clean of any form of torture then I will be extremely suprised.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


You have to take into the account of the amount of cameras that are present now. They are everywhere compared to even 10 years ago.

Will it be harder to find evidence for past administrations? Of course it will be. But we cannot be naive enough to think that it didn't occur. Thats why I said that we would have to treat the Government as a buisness and dig back through the years, a kind of audit.

If they do this and we find that the past 4 Presidents and their Administrations hands are clean of any form of torture then I will be extremely suprised.




Honestly, I would be surprised to find out previous administrations didn't authorize torture as well.

However, in the United States you are innocent until proven guilty, and so far the only ones who have been proven guilty are those related to the release of these torture memos, and the other events at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram, all of which occurred under the Bush Administration.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I agree. But we should find out exactly how far back this goes.

The past week some things have come to light on who exactly new about this. The list is starting to read like a Whos Who in politics. To really find out who is or was involved a complete audit should take place.

We can go for the past administration. But what about the ones who were involved and are still in politics?

What about those who were involved 20 years ago and are in way or another still involved with politics?

We have only asked for memos concerning the Bush Administration. Why are we not asking for memos concerning torture from all administrations? Someone had to set precedance for this and I find it hard to swallow that it was W.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Don't be surprised if Rice suddenly takes a job outside of the US if this does not go away.Dick Cheney is not gonna be around he's gonna run to Dubai where they have no extradtion treaty with the US.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:40 AM
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!


And yet you undoubtedly wonder why the world looks on in horror and disgust at the nation America is becoming.

I can assure you it's not jealousy.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


That's actually true. There is no "law" in the US that says torture is "illegal" in reference to the Armed Forces, especially during war and not on American soil.

We have "treaties" but the President has the authority through sovereignty to break those treaties. There is no such thing as a binding International Law.

In short: Bush may have been immoral, but not illegal in his actions.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The whole reason she said this is because Jay Bybee wrote a legal opinion on torture and even detailed how many times per day per person they could waterboard legally. Interesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee then unanimously CONFIRMED him with NO questioning as a federal judge AFTER this!

So, yeah, if a federal judge (the one that would hear the case) says it's legal, then IT IS LEGAL until he's taken off the bench!!

He MUST be taken off the bench! I put together a thread on him and this subject and not one single person responded to it. It's here: Jay Bybee - The real reason why Bush will not be prosecuted for torture

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Incredible. This brain dead woman believes this. This is the best definition of a truly sick criminal mind I have currently ever read. Now we have Obama who without a legal birth certificate is playing the same illegal and (I might add) very serious and deadly game. Hollywood could not produce a movie that could compare to current day reality. These individuals like Rice are sick, evil, insane, power crazed humanoids from hell.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


That's actually true. There is no "law" in the US that says torture is "illegal" in reference to the Armed Forces, especially during war and not on American soil.

We have "treaties" but the President has the authority through sovereignty to break those treaties. There is no such thing as a binding International Law.

In short: Bush may have been immoral, but not illegal in his actions.


What about the Constitution? Is that no longer to be considered 'law'?

And if International law is not 'binding' why does it exist, and for whom?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
The whole reason she said this is because Jay Bybee wrote a legal opinion on torture and even detailed how many times per day per person they could waterboard legally. Interesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee then unanimously CONFIRMED him with NO questioning as a federal judge AFTER this!

So, yeah, if a federal judge (the one that would hear the case) says it's legal, then IT IS LEGAL until he's taken off the bench!!

He MUST be taken off the bench! I put together a thread on him and this subject and not one single person responded to it. It's here: Jay Bybee - The real reason why Bush will not be prosecuted for torture

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]


Jaybe was just pandering to Alberto Gonzalez for a job on the 9th Circuit. Career politicians should not be allowed to serve as justices.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
The only one who even hinted that this was not appropriate in the Bush cabinet was Rumsfeld

Don't think for one second the Rumsfeld has a soft bone in his body. Just like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz got us to go to war with Iraq because Iraq was "amassing weapons of mass destruction" which turned out to be false, they tried this same exact tactic back in the 1970's. They tried saying Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction and tried getting us to go to war under those precepts. Once again, it was all false rhetoric.

Watch this short video to see how some of the criminals in power tried getting us to go to war with Russia in the 70's:

www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by Intelearthling
Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.
Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.

That's textbook Republican propaganda at work right there. The Bush administration wants you to believe that you and your children are going to die if you don't give up some of your liberties. Illegal wire tapping, kidnapping of innocents and torturing them in the hope that they might be a terrorist or give a name of someone who is.

And this is all on the premise that real terrorists carried out 9/11, against all available evidence. You should visit the 9/11 forums sometime. After 9/11 the Bush admin said bin Laden was public enemy number one and that we were going to catch him dead or alive. Then six months later he says this:

www.youtube.com...

And then the FBI states "there's no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11":

www.muckrakerreport.com...

And then people wonder why he was never caught. We weren't trying to catch him. Bin Laden was a patsy right after 9/11 to give the people an enemy. Then he was quickly forgotten 6 months later so the Bush admin could carry on with their agenda.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Someone needs to hit people who think like this with the 911 commission report.

Then after reading the 9/11 Commission Report, someone should hit people who think the 9/11 Commission Report is true and factual with the follow up called 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

Not to mention the fact that Kean and Hamilton charged that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and wrote in their book that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials. Please visit the 9/11 forum for what really happened on 9/11.



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

The Spanish courts are trying to prosecute Bush admin officials under international law as we speak:


Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and five other ex-Bush administration officials are accused of being the legal architects of a system that allowed torture of prisoners at Guantanamo, in violation of international law.
BBC



Originally posted by gaslaugh123
Now we have Obama who without a legal birth certificate

Obama's birth certificate was approved by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Otherwise he wouldn't even be president right now. Move on from this rubbish please.



Originally posted by Maxmars
Jaybe was just pandering to Alberto Gonzalez for a job on the 9th Circuit.

If you look at the news articles about the Spanish court case, you'll see that Gonzalez and Jaybe are among the six that are being considered for indictment. But it's looking unlikely that it will go through because the AG of Spain appears to not know what he's talking about and pressing for the case to be dismissed.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
As long as the President 'says' it's ok , it's not illegal.

Thats fine, if he says it 'ok to torture citizens' or to 'release plagues' on humanity or simply that he 'doesn't like' a country and that 'he'd like to wiped them from the face of the Earth' then thats fine it won't be illegal and the public will approve. so congress will approve the funds and then it can be carried out.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Some of you people I just don't get. why is it these libral morons are so concerned with HELPING the enemy? Do you not know that they want to kill us. If doing these things is going to save AMERICANS then I say go ahead, do whatever the hell you have to.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by MysterE
 


You are exactly right. The buck has to stop somewhere or government cant function. If the President says its legal after getting legal advice then its legal. Now if the President is wrong then he could face prosecution, but not the people below him who were given orders by him.



if the servicemen and women who committed the torture are in jail, then the civilians that instructed them to do it should be in jail...it is as simple as that.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Constitution does not protect Prisoners of War, Enemy Combatants, or ANY NON American outside of the United States of America's legal boundaries.

The Constitution protects against cruel or unusual punishment at the hands of the State directed to Citizens protected by said document. It has nothing to do with the procedures of WAR, which is controlled by the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. That all actions regarding the Armed Forces in times of war, so long as they do not involve American Citizens, is the responsibility of the President.



And if International law is not 'binding' why does it exist, and for whom?


"Law" is defined as an order with repercussion.. that is to say if I speed down the highway, I will get a ticket. If I murder, I get arrested. A treaty is a non-binding agreement by International States to come to a common agreement or understanding to direct specific actions. The treaty cannot breach sovereignty, because there is no controlling force to bring about a repercussion if the treaty is violated. The only states that can enact repercussion on to other states do so out of political, economic and military power for their own gains. It's an exclusive right. We can embargo Cuba, and we can encourage others to, but small states do not push around big states.

This is the law of International Anarchy, that all States answer to them selves and no singular power.. this makes the theory of International Law void, as without detailed repercussion it is not a law, there is no enforcer.

The Governments can make individual laws based on treaties, but the treaties themselves can never be considered law, binding, or to have a higher power then a Sovereign government.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post 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?


the powers of persuasion.

Also, when a contract is written to negotiate the terms of a "bail out" you include the clause in there as well.

It's actually pretty simple if you'd allow yourself to think it out first.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
SHE DID NOT SAY THAT

If she had said it .. she'd be dead wrong.

She said this -


“The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” .... “By definition,” she repeated, “if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”


She basically said that he didn't/wouldn't authorize anything that violated the Convention Against Torture.

That's a very far cry from 'when the president approves it, it's not illegal'.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join