"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[DinoDoc]

I'm not here to satisfy your needs.

[Guynemer]

You'll never leave the corner behind and become a high-class L.A. call girl with THAT attitude, DD.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, no.

If one doesn't apply then the other does. No court in the world would accept a judgment that Guantanamo was inside the US while ruling that it was outside.

Therefore, the people who wrote the report are guilty of attempting what can only be described as legal obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding (for a certain amount of time) the obligations of US agencies not to commit torture.

[Ramo]

I'm curious Dino, what is it about the treaty that we have with Cuba that legitimizes the lack of constitutional guarantees for aliens in Gitmo, but does not legitimize the lack of constitutional guarantees for citizens in Gitmo? Or, did the court pull their decision out of their ass?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I have court precedent. Care to beat that?

I guess logic doesn't count then?

[Nubclear]

So if I go to gitmo, I'll be both inside *and* outside the US at once?

Interesting!

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: "We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So is it part of US or no?

My question remains unanswered.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

It seems that a corner has been painted into by one of the Bu****es

[Nubclear]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not&quot

Originally posted by Some Polyconservativer

My question remains unanswered.

UR, I've already answered your question. Are you some sort of Chinese maoist or something?

[chequita guevara]

So, if Gitmo is sovreign Cuban territory, does that it mean Castro can order the prisoners there be released?

[Urban Ranger]

@ Tass

[Aeson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So, if Gitmo is sovreign Cuban territory, does that it mean Castro can order the prisoners there be released?

No, it means Castro will be held responsible for the torture going on.

[Bosh]

"without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority"

authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Article II Section III:

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

[Nubclear]

Unlike South Korea, Boshko, the US isn't a despotism

[Pekka]

Uh, that article was disturbing to say the least. I don't know about laws and stuff, but I think at least in here the President can't brake the law. I mean, president can, but after he steps out and another president is elected, the president gets in deep **** for the lesser crimes. I don't even know if braking laws like this.. I think they would be out of the job just like that.

The case of torture is in my mind pretty simple. Then you either stick with it or not, but there is no 'kinda' or 'but'.
You either do not torture, or you torture.

Ayway I'm a bit disappointed.