The rule of law is a beautiful thing, and it even applies to the Bush administration.
No, I think you should be ashamed that representatives of our nation are using torture in our name, crime or not.
The whole point is we to do know if it is torture, or even exactly what happened. Remember all those Marines that were accused of cold blooded murder in Haditha? Look what happened when we got real legal proceeding going.
Have ya ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water, Mandrake? Vodka, that’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water.
It used to be that an opposition to torture wasn’t considered controversial…
Maybe fluoridation worked? :eek:
Yeah, that worked out real good, you could almost hear the gasps of admiration and approval across the Middle East.
I guess you would have liked to have seen them railroaded into a conviction to make the Middle East happy.
Who is supporting torture?
An exaggeration. Actually, a wild exaggeration. But doesn’t it seem to you that a whole bunch of folks are dead and nobody seemed to have done much?
Bunches of people tend to be killed in war zones.
I doubt the focus was ever on finding useful anti-terror info. 90% of those rounded up would just have been nobodies, with no useful information. The focus would have been on getting confessions to justify the initial incarceration.
Once again, compassion and empathy are not your strong suit, are they?
Then what would have been the motive for the original incarceration?
In order to have people to torture for confessions of terrorism.
And sometimes under circumstances constituting a crime. What is your point?
My point is that it is not a crime every time that bunches of people end up dead. Just because a bunch of people ended of dead in Haditha does not mean that anyone committed a crime.
I am sure that book is full of wonderfully impressive accusations, but if we want to establish that Bush administration has actually broken the rule of law, we need a full investigation to be followed up by legal proceedings.
I’d be all for such an investigation, followed by such proceedings.
In the meantime, I reiterate a point that I fortunately haven’t had to make in awhile: lawyers don’t own our vocabulary. Lawyers are welcome to assert what a given word means in a courtroom, just like mathematicians are free to use ordinary words in different ways from the usual in math papers and texts.
But out here, I don’t need a legal ruling to say that these techniques are torture.
You can call torture anything you want, but if you want there to be consequences to a finding of torture that finding will need to meet the legal definition.
Since my point was
I’ll regard that as a non-sequitur.