It’ll be sooner that that. Anybody he pardons won’t be able to cite the 5th Amendment when called to testify before Congressional commitees. If he’s bold enough to pardon himself he’s going to end up spending alot of time testifing before Congress.
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious given that the Administration has done everything possible to ensure that none of these cases actually go to trial?
It’s not hilarious, it’s an obvious ploy. Some of our conservative brethren have taken the line that they are just concerned with the legality of punishing Bush and his cronies for their crimes, they’re not going to debate the morality of what he has done, because of course, there’s no winning THAT argument with anyone who’s not a stone fascist. So they stick with the legality issues and ignore the rest because they figure that the outcome they desire … Bush and his cronies escape being held responsible for their immoral acts … will be best served by that approach.
Of course, there is no way to PROVE this without evidence of bad faith such as a confession or other posts contradicting their stated position, but it’s such an OBVIOUS ploy that it’s pretty safe to assume that that is what’s going on.
Clearly it involves bending over and twisting around.
I just walk up and focus my eyes. It is not hard.
I do not see why my conscience should be bothered. Again, I am not making any claims about the morality of the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” I am only discussing the legal issues. Even if I am completely wrong, it would only show that I had a misunderstanding of an area of the law that is extremely difficult even for experts in the field. That is hardly what I would consider a moral failing.
I do not think the moral issue is a good topic for discussion. This is not ploy on my part because I am conservative or a Bush supporter. I am not a conservative and I think Bush is one the worst Presidents in the history of this country. I just do not think the moral issue is a good topic, because most people decide the issue of the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” as a matter of first principles. Personally, that the US uses “enhanced interrogation techniques” turns my stomach. But, I do not think that government actors should base their actions on the moral positions of their citizens that are not reflected in the law. Government actors should use their own consciences (while keeping in mind the political ramifications) while staying within the law. The people of this country made a choice to re-elect Bush. And we knew what we would get from Bush.
Not a good topic for discussion? Well, too bad. It’s the topic of this discussion. You want to participate in discussions that you think have fit topics, may I suggest that you coming into this one the way you have amounts to no more than thread-shitting.
The topic of this thread is whether Lynndie England should get a pardon because the Bush administration admitted to also breaking the law in regard to torture. But that is not what the Bush administration did. The administration admitted to using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” If these techniques are not legally torture, then there is really no justification for England to get a pardon.
What England did = illegal
What Bush did = questionable legal status
Not to mention, even if the Bush administration did engage in torture, it still would not justify giving England a pardon.
It seems as if 2 inches thinks that if he repeats the lie over and over and over and over again, then it makes it true. It’s not torture, damnit! The president said it wasn’t even though the courts have ruled it is! See, squint your eyes, use your imagination! Interpret these rulings my way and-- lo and behold-- nothing illegal happened!
Except for the scapegoats that were convicting in military court for it. That’s because the retarded girl and her idiot friends thought of this all by themselves. They took it upon themselves to show these prisoners what for. Ayeup. And, if we don’t consider any moral shortcomings-- well, we are all off scott-free. Why then, NOTHING we do is wrong.
You, ** 2 inches of appeasment** are the worst kind of citizen. Fuck you and your apologist’s arguments.
Cite the case.
Please also show the direct connection between the “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved by the administration and what happened at Abu Ghraib. Are you claiming that everything that happened at Abu Ghraib was approved by the administration?
You mean besides the ones already mentioned that you are hand waving away? Sure. Our word isn’t our bond, I guess.
And while your at it, Biggirl please also show me where I put my dignity. I thought I put it in with my equivocating and justifying skills but I can’t seem to find it. . …
Was that a whoosh?
Even though Bush allowed the CIA to engage in waterboarding (and who knows what other kinds of “enhanced interrogation” techniques"), folks like Ms. England are governed by the Army field manual (or its equivalent in whatever branch they serve). She was tired in a military court, and there is no way Bush is going to pardon her. No way.
There has already been legislation passed that gives the CIA folks immunity, but the military is going to prosecute this sort of stuff whenever it surfaces. Frankly, I think they didn’t go far enough up the chain of command, but that’s another matter.
As I mentioned, the military justice system failed to do its duty by having her executed.
As I said, I expect Mr. Bush to issue a blanket pardon for all sorts of unnamed people for all sorts of unspecified crimes. It will be a legal dog’s breakfast. People will claim to be covered by it even if they aren’t.
But the main effect will be to derail any investigations into these atrocities, at least long enough for Mr. Bush to retire to obscurity with a fig leaf of dignity.
Wow, you’re harsh.
Shall we place a little wager on that?
I do not care a fig if she lives or dies. I care about winning this war. Killing her will help us win it. Not killing her has made the fight tougher.
Sure. How much? How?
You mean the Alabama case that does not rule that waterboarding is legally torture? That case? Or Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, which also does not rule that that waterboarding is legally torture? Which one?
As to the Geneva Convention, are members of al Qaeda legally prisoners of war?
Stamp your feet and wave your hands. I hear it works for Tinkerbell.
You are the one that cannot cite a case. You are ignoring reality. You want “enhanced interrogation techniques” to considered legally torture and to be illegal, but that is just not how the law works.
I would like America to not be a bigoted country that treats its citizens unequally under the law. But just because I want America to treat all its citizens equally under the law, does not mean that it actually does treat them equally. And just because you would like “enhanced interrogation techniques” to be illegal, does not mean that they are illegal.