Next January 20, with any luck, a Democrat will move into the White House. That Dem will say a lot of blather about how he and his party aren’t like that icky George Bush, we’re better than him, especially with respect to things like basic human rights.
If it’s important to that President that the world take him/her seriously, it would be helpful if the Democratic Party acted this year as if they meant it.
Nice try, it was in the OP.
My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members. It’s a fact of life, deal with it. And it ain’t like we’re ripping fingernails off (hopefully). Some form of torture techniques have to be legally allowed (whether it’s singing Christmas songs or showing them photos of Oprah on the beach) for proper interrogation and recovery of information. You just can’t let the public know what they are because the terrorists will then know how far the CIA can legally go and they could possibly prepare for such torture. I’m sure someone could effectively “get used” to water boarding if they wanted to. It would then become a known and ineffectual method of recovering information or breaking down a suspect.
IMHO, the real question is, just what will Congress show it’s not willing to tolerate? Screw revenge; the point is to make sure that future Presidents don’t overstep the bounds of decency by as much as this one did.
And there’s really no way to write laws binding future Presidents. Ultimately, only Congress can rein in a President that wants to play fast and loose with the law. This Congress, by its action or inaction, will give future Presidents a heads-up for what they can or can’t get away with.
Couldn’t they just pass a bill depriving him of his post-presidency pension, Secret Service protection, right to a state funeral, and suchlike perks?
In other words, according to you America is a nation of scum and fools. After all, ANYONE can be a suspected member of Al Qaeda.
And I do deal with it. I deal with it by holding America in utter contempt.
Beating people with baseball bats or suffocating them to death or driving them insane is better ?
No, they don’t.
No, they can’t. That’s the point of using it. And what makes you think that anyone in Al Qaeda ( or most of the rest of the world ) believes that the CIA restricts itself to what is legal" ?
Ah yes: if we suspect them of being bad guys, then we can torture them. Conviction? Nah. Evidence? Maybe. Suspicion? Yeah, we got that - turn the thumbscrews!
No, we’ve done far worse than that.
Yeah, if you only knew ahead of time that they were going to stick a rusty hook through your scrotum and hang you by it, you’d be able to withstand it.
And create a situation where the President cannot do anything because ultimately they will piss off the other party and be impeached by a hostile congress anytime Congress’s majority is the hostile party. Ultimately creating permanent gridlock and an end to checks and balances, leading to a permanent state of corruption and influence peddling.
No thanks.
That’s not true. Congress can pass laws limiting the power of the president. They could pass laws changing the scope of the President’s authority. Also, I am willing to wait and see what Obama will do to restructure the Executive to within constitutional bounds as he has promised. Which IMO is one of his most significant campaign promises, more important than the sabre rattling at NAFTA, and on par with reform of Health Care and removal of troops from Iraq.
So, you are basically saying that the only alteratives are a President that is beyond all laws and restriction, and an ineffectual government ?
And how does making it clear that a President can get away with any form of corruption prevent corruption ?
My point is, they’ve already done so. But unless they’re willing to enforce egregious violations of those laws through the mechanism of impeachment, they can write as many laws as they want, but it won’t make a difference.
Or it might simply lead to something nearer to a parliamentary system (executive serving at the legislature’s pleasure, dismissable by a vote of no confidence), which is at least arguably superior to what we’ve got now.
No, they’ll just believe the CIA over you. That the person they were interrogating was a threat.
You’re so quick to jump. I’m pretty sure those aren’t legal methods of torture. I’m against actual physical harm and any other method that isn’t recognized as legal. I’m also giving the CIA lots of rope to determine who’se a threat and who’se not.
Cite? Do you know for a fact that a person can’t be trained so that water boarding becomes ineffective on them?
And if the CIA isn’t acting properly during interrogations they need to be dealt with, this would probably not be something that the President would be OK with.
The cops haul in suspects all the time, you got a problem with them too? They usually can’t tell by looking at someone who acts suspiciously or fits the description of someone who has until they bring them in for further questions.
Understood and that was terribly wrong on our part.
Rusty hooks through the scrotum are likely already illegal.
Doesn’t mean that he couldn’t get used to it if he practiced.
I’m sorry if this is de-railing the OP but I happen to think that what the WH has admitted to allowing wasn’t illegal torture or wasn’t thought to be illegal by those who determine such things. It’s certainly pushing the lines, but I don’t think they crossed 'em here.
In other words, scum and fools, as I said.
Legality is irrelevant. Torture is evil; if the law allows torture, the law is evil. Any organization or government that practices torture is evil, and should be destroyed if it refuses to stop.
And your position is ridiculous; why bother with the torture, except for sadism’s sake ? You are essentially giving the CIA the right to grab anyone at all and torture them until they “admit” to being Al Qaeda or whatever.
The fact that despite it being a very old technique, no one stands up to it ?
And if the President IS fine with them torturing people to death ?
Three Articles of Impeachment:
Sent to the House by a vote of 27-11.
Sent to the House by a vote of 28-10.
Sent to the House by a vote of 21-17.
Each article alleged an act that was a violation of criminal law.
The statute allegedly violated by Nixon’s “impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries,” if you please?
ETA: Reason I ask is that, neither at the time (and believe me, I was paying close attention), nor during the 1/3 of a century since, have I ever heard it suggested that the second Article of Impeachment concerned a statutory violation.
Until today, of course. So pardon me if I’m skeptical.
18 USC § 1505 et seq, which reads in pertinent part:
That would require a credible third party.
The President is not beyond all laws and restrictions. That’s a BS argument. I don’t see how tying up Congress in a pointless hatefest for the rest of the year to accomplish absolutely nothing, is in some way a good thing.