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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[edit on 5/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

Uhhhhhhhhh... That's an old edit.

With all the complaining about waterboarding, does anybody think that cutting somebodys head off might a little more severe? Personally, I would have the waterboarding.

There is only ONE political party in America. That's why voting in America
is such a joke. Whatever you vote, it makes no difference as there is only
one political party. This whole republican - democrat thing is nothing but
a facade. It surprises me so many Americans still don't see through it, it
really couldn't be more obviously.

The only good presidents, who worked for the people's best interest, were
murdered. All other presidents, all presidents that survived, were crooks.
But I don't know yet what kind of person Obama is, the future will tell.

Whether the President "approved it" or not, there is no US statute that prohibits waterboarding of non-military combatants captured in the zone of conflict. They can essentially be treated as spies, subject to as severe a penalty as execution. Enemy military are covered by the Geneva convention, since the US is a signatory to that treaty. Traitorous US citizens must be prosecuted under the US legal system, thus they enjoy the protections provided for in the US Constitution. Waterboarding of foreign non-military combatants may seem immoral to many people, but it is definitely not illegal.

Besides, the US President has no legal authority beyond that which the Constitution grants him (or her), and that includes making law. The power to create or modify legislation (like laws permitting certain kinds of torture) lies solely with the Congress. The President only has the power to command those under his authority, as Commander in Chief of the military and Chief of the Executive branch of the federal government, to carry out his orders. If the orders are illegal, then the subordinates receiving those illegal orders have a sworn obligation not to carry them out. Every member of the military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not their President.

If torture is not illegal, then there is something seriously wrong with your
moral values. America never had any moral values worth mentioning, but
torture is really too much. The worst of all, is that they dare to speak out
the words "America" and "moral leadership", in the same sentence. These
words should not even be put in the same book!

Seems like a simple issue of Condi passing the buck and letting the bus run over GW while simultaneously claiming ignorance in regards to what is and what isn't considered torture...which we all know is in direct relation to how much the public knows about what really went on.

Wehali,

The 8th amendment of the Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment", so any torture would be considered unconstitutional and therefore illegal. But the US Constitution only applies to US citizens or those being tried in the US legal system.

If morally you're against punishing supposedly innocent individuals during a time of war, why aren't you outraged at Truman's use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or FDR's fire-bombing of Dresden. Both of those willful (but legal) acts killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The waterboarding during the Bush administration did not result in one single fatality.

Maybe your leftist sensibilities are clouding your judgment?

Originally posted by MBF
With all the complaining about waterboarding, does anybody think that cutting somebodys head off might a little more severe? Personally, I would have the waterboarding.

But that begs a moral question...
Which is worse... killing someone, or making someone WISH you'd kill them.

reply to post by riff_raff


Very well put. These liberals seem to believe the Constitution is a universal document to apply to the entire World. They also seem to believe the US is subservient to the UN or international treaties..

Political, moral, personal beliefs being construed ignorantly as "law" where no law exist.

Conclusion is quite simply Bush may have been immoral, but not illegal.

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by MBF
With all the complaining about waterboarding, does anybody think that cutting somebodys head off might a little more severe? Personally, I would have the waterboarding.

But that begs a moral question...
Which is worse... killing someone, or making someone WISH you'd kill them.

Well killing them would be much worse normally. But with these fanatics only wishing to be dead cant get them any celestial virgins. Oh to dream the imposable dream!



Before we hack Rice to, what about these "executive orders" produced outside of all other authorities? These orders seem to give presidents the power of an independent governing force. Sort of a legislative authority in their finality, a way to get around it all and have been doing it for years.

Heck you need something done or taken care of just rip off an executive order! Like a Papal Bull or something.

reply to post by Intelearthling


Even a Chairborne Ranger should know that there is allot more gray than black and white in war.

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.

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).

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

This sounds like another person separated from the truth.

Does everything in politics have to have a bash toward a republican and democrat simultaneously just to make it a "fair" bash?

I do not even like calling the government by the parties in which lead it...I just call it the government, and allow all accountability to be held upon all parties.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


I have recently decided to simply re-use the old term.., "the establishment"

People like Rice and her circle aren't even really what they purport to be anymore. The collective 'groups' of people are not so easily categorized as one party or another, because they change party's like changing shoes. And since over half of them are really business people playing 'politics for profit' we know, and can see, that their concept of ideology is nothing more than a Hollywood role. They use all their marketing resources and skills to 'sell' us on the reality they want us to believe in.

At the center of the argument regarding the legality of torture, I have heard it said that our Constitutional provision do not extend to the people being held by our agencies. Also, that the international provisions for the conduct of our agents in the field, military or otherwise, are somehow an irrelevancy.

However, the argument 'skips over' the crux of the matter, morality.

The window dressing of whether some citizens reject the common rights protection of those under our control is a construct. If we are to be a people of 'due process' and 'rights' can we really assert that there is a time when those 'universal truths' upon which we have constructed our society are not really 'universal' at all? The object is to make due process work for everyone. Bypassing it is a diminishment.

I resist expounding on the childish and naive obstacle, the 'Hollywood depiction of last-minute impending doom scenarios' or such contrivances. This is real life and in real life you cross that bridge when you get to it. Exceptions and extraordinary conditions will always exist. But you can't build policy on exceptions.

In order to justify such treatment of people we don't know, we are offered:

No information regarding the circumstances of capture
No information regarding the charge, as it were, other than anonymous allegation
No feedback of any kind from the prisoner
No information regarding the exact regimen of their treatment
No meaningful objective and unbiased oversight, civilian, or otherwise

i.e. all we know is what as reluctantly been dragged out into the open.



[edit on 2-5-2009 by Maxmars]

No offence and i truly don't advocate violence against women (or anyone for that matter)....

But can someone please hurry up and punch her in the mouth.

Evil Bitch.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
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?

Under Article 6 of the US Constitution all treaties entered to in good faith become "Supreme Law of the Land" which is defined as the Constitution. Violating the Geneva convention against torture of ANY enemy combatant is illegal under the US constitution by extension of article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is what gives authority to foreign treaties signed and ratified by the US. Torture is illegal and violates the Constitution. The Geneva Convention was signed and ratified because it does, in fact follow the premise of our Constitution.

You have the right to LIFE, Liberty, and property.

And under our own Constitutionally mandated judicial procedures, persons under US jurisdiction(Guantanamo), meaning it's property, lands, ships, and foreign interests under control of the US are bound by the Constitution to use Due process of the law. And no cruel and unusual punishment shall be imposed:

Amendment 5 Bill of Rights

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 Bill of Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 8 Bill of Rights:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Together with Article 6 entitled Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
These actions by the Bush administration, and by extension the Obama administration for not doing anything about it is a crime and punishable under federal and international laws. I'm sorry Rockpuck but your assumptions of the legality of torture are absolutely wrong and legal precedence and history refutes any claim otherwise.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by riff_raff

 

Very well put. These liberals seem to believe the Constitution is a universal document to apply to the entire World. They also seem to believe the US is subservient to the UN or international treaties..

Political, moral, personal beliefs being construed ignorantly as "law" where no law exist.

Conclusion is quite simply Bush may have been immoral, but not illegal.

Actually, you're just plain wrong.

I'm not going to bother quoting all of the sourced posts in this thread, but if you will look back it has been conclusively demonstrated by myself, Animal and Projectvxn, that torture is indeed illegal, both domestically and internationally. There is no framework in place to legally justify torture, whether in an act of war (which the conflict in Iraq isn't), or in periods of national crisis.

Your argument isn't backed up by any sources. If you would like to claim that torture is indeed legal, why not back it up with a source?

I'm willing to bet it's because you cannot find any.

All your posts boil down to is your flawed interpretation of international law, as well as domestic law and our Constitution. Again, before you claim that torture is "immoral, but not illegal", please demonstrate a body of law which backs it up, as the rest of us have been doing.

reply to post by projectvxn


Excellent, yes, these apply to citizens. Not prisoners of war, or military prisoners (enemy combatants).

Treaties are not "binding" and the treaties quoted in article six actually refer to inter-state treaties, not international treaties.

Constitution governs US Citizens in America. Not enemies.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Excellent, yes, these apply to citizens. Not prisoners of war, or military prisoners (enemy combatants).

Treaties are not "binding" and the treaties quoted in article six actually refer to inter-state treaties, not international treaties.

Constitution governs US Citizens in America. Not enemies.

And you still refuse to cite any outside sources for your information.

Constitution aside, torture is illegal under U.S. law.

Since you apparently do not understand how to look up the law, I will cite it here for you.

§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection
(a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Source

And, in case this particular section of United States Law isn't clear enough, here are some definitions to accompany it:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(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; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Source

So there it is. Quite clearly you can see that torture is illegal, in all circumstances. Just because you believe it is legal, does not make it so. You actually have to demonstrate proof to back up your claims.

Provide a source to back up your claim that it's legal, or continue to hide behind your unfounded assumptions. If you choose the latter, you will only have proved your ignorance of the laws of our land.

reply to post by Rockpuck



And then there's this:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 The Congress shall have Power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.... ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.... He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Under Article 1 section 9 we have not met the requirement for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. And therefore the actions of the Presidency and those making policy around this are in violation of yet another article of the United States Constitution.

Treaties in the Constitution are talked about and described in many parts. Including Article 6. Article 6 has no known side notes or definitions defining a treaty. And for as long as it has been an article of the constitution it has been interpreted as ANY treaty involving the several states and foreign treaties. The Constitution applies to anyone who resides within the US, it's territories, bases, consulates, or any jurisdiction covered under federal law. All are clearly defined in the US code. This includes Guantanamo or any place, or property where the US holds ownership or interest.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by projectvxn
Article 6 has no known side notes or definitions defining a treaty. And for as long as it has been an article of the constitution it has been interpreted as ANY treaty involving the several states and foreign treaties. The Constitution applies to anyone who resides within the US, it's territories, bases, consulates, or any jurisdiction covered under federal law. All are clearly defined in the US code. This includes Guantanamo or any place, or property where the US holds ownership or interest.

This is correct, any treaties that our nation signs into and ratifies, including the third and fourth Geneva Conventions and UNCAT, are considered legally binding by the Constitution. To violate them is not only to violate international law, but also to violate the Constitution which holds them binding.