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: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No it's not.

Thats blindly putting your faith in a man to always make the right decisions.

You of all people that are one to say "never take something at face value, always question authority, etc etc etc" should be the one joining in on the right side of the argument here.


Rice said "if the president tells us to do something, we do it, and it's legal"


if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture


Wrong.

I have several people who work for me at my job. If i tell them to do something, they're supposed to do it.
But if i tell someone to steal from the vault and split it after work, it still makes it illegal.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Fremd]




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:30 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.


How incredably DAFT.

Let me 'enlighten' you
...

Title 18 of the United States Code


Title 18 of the United States Code is the criminal and penal code of the federal government of the United States. It deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure.
link


Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
link

So yes torture is illegal in the USA, I laughed so hard to hear that someone actually believed it was not. To assume that these laws do not apply to our troops abroad is also laughable and will in the end be shown to be FALSE.

As to your claim that Bush making this decision made the act legal because of his 'sovereignty' is also hilarious. The POTUS is NOT a sovereign, he is still bound by the constitution and the laws of the USA. Remember Nixon?

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Animal]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
Thats blindly putting your faith in a man to always make the right decisions.

That's exactly right.

She wasn't implying that he could approve anything he wanted and therefore whatever he approved of was suddenly legal or okay to do. She was saying that the president wouldn't approve of anything that was illegal to begin with.


You of all people that are one to say "never take something at face value, always question authority, etc etc etc" should be the one joining in on the right side of the argument here.

I AM on the correct side. If people want to nail her for blindly following something that was wrong ... that's all well and good.


But to say that she basically repeated the ol' Nixon statement .. that's wrong. The inference in the Nixon statement was that Nixon said he could do anything he wanted, even if it broke the law. He said that if authorized it then it would suddenly be okay for him to do because the POTUS is above the law.

What Rice said was that Bush wouldn't authorize anything that would break the law to begin with. (which of course could easily be argued with),

#1 - Believes POTUS is above the law vs
#2 - Blindly believing POTUS won't authorize anything that breaks the law.

Those are two different things.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Why do you want to prosecute these people?

I understand that the war in Iraq was not connected to 9/11...
I understand that our beef with Iran is not connected to 9/11...

But hell we were at war and we needed information. I don't think those that wanted the info cared weather it was good or bad, they know that they would have to vet it out and that the info gleaned may be completely false. They also knew that in the lies would be very valuable nuggets of truth.

So the torture methods used make someone feel that they are dying when in fact they are perfectly fine - so it messes with their mind and some people will suffer from that for the rest of their lives. Waaaaaa We are at war and this war will cause more mental anguish then can possibly be caused by a few or a few hundred being slightly tortured.

Oh, and if your one of those that believe this war is illegal or that 9/11 was an inside job, then just ignore my post. One can't argue with a closed mind... I know it goes both ways... but hell, I have seen no proof of an inside job yet...

You should go read the topic by.... crap now I can't find it (I would like to give credit whomever posted the article, sorry)... but the article can be found at killology.com/sheep_dog.html

do you hate your sheep dog? I would have to say that the former administration was trying to protect us - no matter how bunged up things got. And that the current administration was right there and a part of the whole thing - the prosecutors will be as guilty as the prosecuted.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


yes, you're right in several regards, but as this argument relates to the title of this thread

"When the president approves it, it's not illegal"

Thats precisely what she said.

She's saying that "if he tells me to do something, i know it's not illegal"

But in my example, if i told one of my employee's to rob the vault at night because we're testing the validity of our security staff, but to make sure not to tell anyone...

my employee still broke the law...but did so because i told them to.

There's no difference there.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by clcreek
 



So the torture methods used make someone feel that they are dying when in fact they are perfectly fine - so it messes with their mind and some people will suffer from that for the rest of their lives. Waaaaaa We are at war and this war will cause more mental anguish then can possibly be caused by a few or a few hundred being slightly tortured.


If they were perfectly fine, there would have been no deaths during interrogation; there were.

And by the way, considering these people have been collected from their homelands, not charged, and simply assumed to be 'terrorists' what do you suppose happens when they are wrong? Or are they never wrong?

A few hundred suffering from PTSS would make good suicide bombers, no? We are CREATING more enemies with MORE reason to hate us. That may work for your sense of 'justice' but 20 years from now when your kid is crushed in a building toppled by one of these fools, you won't be so gleefully happy about there 'waaaaa' anymore.

If you can't CHARGE them with a crime, you shouldn't be able to hold them, and torture them, until you can come up with a crime with which to charge them. If you were tortured, you would confess too, if you couldn't you would be damn sure to satisfy your 'interrogators' any way possible, just to make it stop.

The horror and anguish the interrogators were told to use against the prisoners was then, and is now, illegal. You can dance around that anyway you want, but this isn't a TV-reality show. This is real life, and Hollywood has gotten us into enough trouble already.

Why don't they talk about HOW these people were "captured"? Because it would demonstrate conclusively that we are punishing these people, to make us 'feel' better; and whether they are guilty or not, doesn't matter to the career politicians and businessmen who put this whole debacle in motion.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


actually your wrong. laws dont govern war.. those laws protect civilians, NOT enemy combatants..... and us laws are only effective within legal boundaries.

honestly, i fail to see how this is so hard to grasp?

so, try again?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:38 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?







revenge

Keeping the left hand from knowing what the right hand is doing.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

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


rawstory.com

When Stanford University students recently asked former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about waterboarding and torture, her response was uncannily close to Richard Nixon’s infamous claim, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Students toting a video camera approached Rice and asked her about a new Senate Intelligence Committee report which states that she gave the CIA its go-ahead for the use of waterboarding in July 2002.

Rice responded
(visit the link for the full news article)



For those who don't believe what she said, here is the video.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Bush once famously stated that it was the Congress' job to make the laws and the Executive's job to interpret the laws.

Given his sub middle-school grasp of the separation of powers, it is not at all surprising to hear them make the argument that the President can do as he pleases.

Caligula anyone?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


unless i am mistaken US bases abroad ARE governed by US laws.

now the debate about 'enemy combatants' is an interesting question but again, on US soil (bases) everyone is afforded the protection of US laws.

bush has tried to argue this is in fact not the case but that argument is quickly unraveling because it is fundamentally flawed.

john mccain is a US citizen even though he was born on a US base in panama because the BASE is considered part of US territory.

gitmo = USA

see my point?

so you can try to make the distinction that these prisoners are not entitled to the same laws that every other human on US territory is entitled to but as we can see today there is now precedent within the US legal system that this is not the case (gitmo prisoners now being afforded due process).

so you can cling to a dying ideal if you wish but I would not be so bold about how IT is somehow the truth when we can see evidence it is in fact not...

so, i say to you, 'try again'?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Wow, yeah. She should be put in jail for being corrupt and never allowed to hold an office again.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If you didn't glean from my comments I don't care that it is illegal by US law to torture someone. One interesting thing you didn't touch on my comments is that if the previous administration is to be prosecuted for these "crimes", who is going to do the prosecuting? The entire federal government was in on it... should we have those that allowed it prosecute those that did it? The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the US government was aware and allowed it. Congress was aware and allowed it. The House was aware and allowed it. The current administration were all in on it. It makes as much sense as allowing the mafia to hold court and prosecute the mafia...

If you don't like my beliefs in that area you really wont like my next comment.

Prisons are unconstitutional in that it is cruel and inhumane to lock a person in a cell for an extended period of time (hmmm kinda fits the definition of torture). Criminals should pay restitution or be put to death... therefor we shouldn't take prisoners, if we are at war we should kill those that fight us and move on.

I find it interesting that the Military is being held to US laws set up to be followed on US soil and the Geneva convention. The wars we are fighting are not on US soil and the enemy is not a signer of the Geneva convention.

In closing I want to say:

Thank You Bush, Cheney, and all the others that did what they did to help stop terrorist attacks. Thank you for taking the terror to the enemy. Thank you for being a sheep dog. THANK YOU

And I would like to ask the current administration to stop pandering and apologizing. We need a strong administration that does not trust (or trusts but verifys) and has a hand on the trigger. Remember "Speak softly and carry a big stick".



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by clcreek
 



Thank You Bush, Cheney, and all the others that did what they did to help stop terrorist attacks. Thank you for taking the terror to the enemy. Thank you for being a sheep dog. THANK YOU.....

speak softly and carry a big stick




First off, the Bush administration never spoke softly of anything...other than hiding illegal activity like torture.


But i'd like to add another "Thank You"

Thank You, Mr. Bush, for finally revealing to the world what the conservative party has truly become.
Thank you for being so honest to the American public with your intentions...regardless of how bad they've robbed us of what made our country great.

And Thank God...that George W. Bush can never be president again.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 


Your right George Bush can't be president so.....

Jenna Welch Hager 2012

Lets keep the legacy going...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by clcreek
 


creek, creek, creek....tsk.

Your grasp of reality is slipping.

Anyone care to explain to him WHY Jenna Bush cannot run for President in 2012??? Or, should we let him puzzle it out for himself?

edit = a bit of dyslexia....

[edit on 5/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by clcreek
 


That (sheep)dog wont hunt.

I recognize all too well that there are none left who could hold the moral high ground to prosecute our dear political careerists and businessmen who have taken the American dream and turned into this nightmare.

By the way, since most them are blessed with police records, you can see exactly how effective the justice system is with prisoners nowadays. Of course, they are mostly migrating to a slave-labor model anyway, a great way to make prison profitable.

Believe what you will. I don't begrudge you that.

You may really believe in the 'sheep dog' marketing ploy recently put forth by the partisan ideologists, and I suppose if it comforts you, that's a good thing.

I don't. I don't allow Hollywood/Madison Avenue story weaving to cloud my perception of the reality that HAS occurred.

Innocent people have been rounded up (in some cases for bounty) and handed over to people who in our name tortured them, and are probably still torturing them. And anyone who tries to stop them is maligned, because "what if it was like and emergency, or a bomb was going to go off in 10 minutes?" or, "don't you remember 9/11 - see what they did 'cause they hate our freedom?", or "You must allow us to do this for your own good!"

I don't expect you to grant me the liberty to call a spade a spade. Torture is not something I authorize ANYONE to do in my name - AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT secretly ("trust us"). And I don't believe ANY of these career politicians or business moguls to have our best interests at heart. We have been lied to so many times, and so flagrantly, that I think we SHOULD consider THEM guilty until they PROVE themselves innocent, since that seems to be the NEW American way in their minds.

We let them hide behind make-believe political ideology (that they switch and modify on the fly at their whim) even though their actions are blatantly against the one true measure of what it means to be American... the Constitution. Of course they call that RADICAL thinking.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
We have been lied to so many times, and so flagrantly, that I think we SHOULD consider THEM guilty until they PROVE themselves innocent, since that seems to be the NEW American way in their minds.


But then you'd be un-American and stooping to their level.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Highground

Originally posted by Maxmars
We have been lied to so many times, and so flagrantly, that I think we SHOULD consider THEM guilty until they PROVE themselves innocent, since that seems to be the NEW American way in their minds.


But then you'd be un-American and stooping to their level.


You got me there!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah, got a little ahead of myself, I guess we will have to wait for 2016... oh well we may have to have two terms of Mr. Apologetic.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join