Report Reveals CIA Conducted Mock Executions

Originally posted by Wimbly
More distractions based on hypotheticals. The story put put by Newsweek no less. One of Obama's faithful.

Holder To Appoint Special Prosecutor To Investigate CIA Interrogators And Contractors The Obama administration is assigning a veteran prosecutor to begin a criminal probe of CIA questioning of terror suspects during the Bush administration, and a new detainee interrogation unit is being created to be supervised by the White House, officials said Monday. www.huffingtonpost.com...

So...are we now able, in your opinion, to take this scenario seriously, or do we have to wait until the last appeal goes through the system?

self edit to add...

Originally posted by Highground
Quick! They're getting smart about the health reform! Find something else that happened under the Bush administration to distract the media for a while! Mock executions?! YES. That will work perfectly!

Of course, if he put everything on hold until the Health Care issue was settled, you'd acuse him of being a one-trick pony, right?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Of course, if he put everything on hold until the Health Care issue was settled, you'd acuse him of being a one-trick pony, right?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

What is the point of him bringing this up now, in the middle of more important issues, if not to cause a distraction? This has already happened, the evidence will still be there when the healthcare reform issue is done. I can understand if it's something currently taking place that needs to be stopped, but it happened 5 years ago. It can wait a few more months. It's kind of hard to deny it sounds like something to throw the media off Obama's back for a while. The government needs to focus on its CURRENT transparency, on CURRENT issues that they are keeping locked behind closed doors, matters that are CURRENTLY affecting us. The midst of a drastic socioeconomic change is not the place or time to clean out skeletons from closets.

tl;dr - Stop pointing fingers and enforce the "transparency" you promised in your own administration, Mr. Obama.

reply to post by dooper


Well I don't think that is correct dooper! I have read in several places that your supreme court 2006 has given Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions rights to enemy combatants.

Geneva Convention Rights for Al-Qaeda

Guest Column | By Gordon Cucullu | June 30, 2006

The Supreme Court decided Thursday by a 5-3 vote that in effect granted al- Qaeda terrorists the same rights as American soldiers. (Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because of a previous decision on the case while at the appellate court level; Thursday’s ruling overturned his decision.) Judge Clarence Thomas, reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in more than 15 years on the Court, scathingly criticized the majority for a decision that he said would sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.

In a stark reflection of the Left’s inability to comprehend the core facts of this war, including even the simplest grasp of the nature of the enemy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said vacuously that today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. Can the woman who may be the next Speaker of the House really think that extending Constitutional safeguards for imprisoned Guantanamo terrorists somehow protects the American people? Or is she simply so blinded by leftist ideology and a pathological hatred for George Bush that she is willing to support Constitutional protections for enemy combatants in order to defeat him?

Are the government’s attorneys upset by the SCOTUS decision? You bet. They stand strongly on the position that foreign terrorists do not deserve the same levels of protection that American citizens do, especially American soldiers – or even foreign saints. We were told by the Court to make the protections for the detainees in question more like a military court martial, a senior Defense official explained. Others at the meeting bitingly criticized the Court for being more concerned with terrorists than with our own soldiers, a sentiment clearly reflected in Pelos’s empty-headed remarks, gushing over Constitution protection for those who are sworn to destroy it.

www.aim.org...

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

www.scotusblog.com...

scholarship.law.cornell.edu...

www.law.umaryland.edu...

Originally posted by Chevalerous
reply to post by dooper

 

Well I don't think that is correct dooper! I have read in several places that your supreme court 2006 has given Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions rights to enemy combatants.

Our Supreme Court once ruled that escaped slaves can't sue for their freedom because since they're property, property has no standing in court.

When they're wrong, they're wrong.