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

[Theben]

Sounds like what DD is saying is that the U.N. Convention Against Torture is nullified wrt the U.S. due to court precedent, tho I don't buy that.

[Jon Miller]

hmm, strike 4 (or is it higher?, the administration hit strike 3 with me recently and so I will not vote my way, instead I will vote them out (if neccesary))

JM

[notyoueither]

It would have to be getting difficult to continue supporting them.

[Jon Miller]

well, my way would be to vote communist

I am just saying that now I am willing to vote democrat

JM

[notyoueither]

I was worried when I read about 'intelligence' being linked to the Iraqi prison. But that part of the story didn't seem to have legs. I guess it did where it counts, and now stuff like this in the WSJ.

How could it be about the economy, or anything else?

[DRoseDARs]

I usually vote Democrat, but default to Green when a candidate is available. Had I suspected Bush was going to be as big of a fuktard as he has proven himself to be I wouldn't have voted Nadar in 2000, opting for Gore instead.

[Patroklos]

This is all academic gentleman.

It does not say that Bush and freinds IS excersiceing these powers, just that he can. There are lots of things the president can do that would scare you that none ever do.

I am assuming they drafted this because as the witch hunt continues, it will be nessecary to defend the SGT that spanked his kid last year from bieng tried for war crimes. You guys are grasping at straws here as far as magnifying this torture thing. It happend in several places, and included .001 of the current forces fighting terroristm. Hardly epedemic or Admin policy.

[Whaleboy]

The thing is that I don't doubt that the US is legally allowed to do this, they've exploited loopholes quite nicely. IMHO the strongest argument is not a legal one, it is your standard coherent argument against torture, and the ends not justifying the means, in this case regardless of the ends since people have been violated.

[Bosh]

This is all academic gentleman.

Yeah but its a damn creepy kind of academic. Having memos coming out of an administration and detail how to exploit loopholes in torture laws and generally how to make torture legal isn't very comforting when the administration is involved in a torture scandal and is blaming it on a few bad bananas. This is a bit of evidence that at the very least a permissive attitude towards official torture goes very high up the chain of command and I suspect that more similar evidence will come to light in the coming months.

[DRoseDARs]

Apples, Boshko. They're blaming it on, "a few bad apples." Let's not sully the good name of the almighty Banana, eh?

Indeed, it continues to amaze me the depths of sheepish devotion many people seem to have of ignoring so many clear signs of this administration's willingness to be evil, or at least shamelessly flirt with immorality. And yet people went into outrageous full-body convulsions (heaving with rage or vomit, or both) whenever there was mention of Clinton having sex with Monica (Yes President Dirtbag, bl0wj0bs DO count as sex).

[Arrian]

Bleh.

Come on, November.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Theben
Sounds like what DD is saying is that ....

Gitmo seems to be outside the jurisdiction of US courts. And yes it actually is interesting.

[Whaleboy]

DD: No-one denies that it is legal. We're questioning whether or not it is wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Article II Section III

Which does not say the President MUST execute all laws. The President has some leeway in how to or if at all to execute certain laws. It has never been unconstitutional for a President to ignore to execute a law... it may be impeachable, however, if Congress wants it to be.

[dudemanjack]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Gitmo seems to be outside the jurisdiction of US courts. And yes it actually is interesting.

But how can you use a U.S. court precedent in a place that is outside jurisdiction of U.S. courts?