Comments on: CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding

Obama Won't Prosecute CIA Officials Who Used Harsh Interrogation Techniques During Bush Administration

[jwind1]

And Bush's legal council WOULD NOT sign off on the torture.

What does THAT tell you?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 8:12 AM : Apr 17, 2009

hungry...you really need to move on...quit obsessing with Bush this or Bush that....it is not healthy

[brianbwb-2009]

"... I don't believe I have ever heard of an American being tortured by the military at Guantanomo or any other prison?" Posted by Stuart2560

That is the entire point, if you allow this to set legal precedent, it is only a matter of time before you will hear such.

[hungry1968-15]

Ask those same prisoners if they feel they are being rehabilitated.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:11 AM : Apr 17, 2009




Read my post from 7:58.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...But what I'm saying is if the "ground level" CIA agents asked their superiors if what they were doing was legal, and they were told "Yes it is", then HOW can you hold them accountable?" Posted by hungry1968-15

UN convention against torture

Article 2

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.

I post the article in it's entirety so you can see the context, but the part relevant to your question is the sentence, " Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials."

[hungry1968-15]

You don't know mush about the law do you? Ignorance of the law is not a deffense. What you just said would excuse every excecutive out there who has a lawyer telling them waht they are doing is technically not ilegal. All teh excecutive would have to say is wellI am not guilty my legal concil told me what I was doing was legal you need to procecute them.
Posted by stimporksuks at 8:07 AM : Apr 17, 2009





And Bush's legal council WOULD NOT sign off on the torture.

What does THAT tell you?

[hungry1968-15]

I must take issue, Prisoners are in prison as part of a sentence issued them for breaking the law. That they are there to simply isolate them from society is a farce. It is punishment first and foremost. Of course they are isolated but that is a consequence of going to prison. States have no desire to rehabilitate anybody. Ask any con?

Secondly...where do you get the idea that prisons "rehabilitate" anyone? They do not.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:05 AM : Apr 17, 2009





Where do I get the idea?

From WORKING in prison as a correction officer.

I can seriously tell you, that most inmates in prison DO NOT feel they are being "punished", but are being seperated from society.

[hungry1968-15]

I must take issue, Prisoners are in prison as part of a sentence issued them for breaking the law. That they are there to simply isolate them from society is a farce. It is punishment first and foremost. Of course they are isolated but that is a consequence of going to prison. States have no desire to rehabilitate anybody. Ask any con?

Secondly...where do you get the idea that prisons "rehabilitate" anyone? They do not.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:05 AM : Apr 17, 2009





Where do I get the idea?

From WORKING in prison as a correction officer.

I can seriously tell you, that most inmates in prison DO NOT feel they are being "punished", but are being seperated from society.

[hungry1968-15]

Man I wanted to leave but you make it so hard with your stupid statements!

So I supposed the 150 year sentence Bernie Madoff will receive is to rehabilitate him so in 150 years when he is released he will no long steal money right? Oh that?s right he won't steal any more because he will be DEAD.

If your moronic statement is true why do we have sentences with Life without parole if our justice system is not set up as a punishment and crime deter system? You are truly either ignorant, brain dead or just plain stupid.
Posted by stimporksuks at 8:04 AM : Apr 17, 2009




TO REMOVE THEM FROM SOCIETY, SO THAT THEY CANNOT HARM ANYONE ELSE.

What part of this very simple concept, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

[brianbwb-2009]

"...We are not talking about our own citizens, we are talking about terrorists, people hell bent on destroying our nation...." Posted by Stuart2560

Or so you have been told, and told by the very same people who ripped you off. The only foreign group of people who are classified as "terrorists" who have advocated attacks on the US is Al Qaeda, which public historical records show was organized, trained, funded, and armed by the CIA.

[hungry1968-15]

See you just listed the deffense of everyone involved in this, all this is a legal grey area and just becsause some bleeding heart lib calls this torture does not make any of it torture. In your words it is a legal grey area and Bush can use that same deffense.
Posted by stimporksuks at 7:53 AM : Apr 17, 2009





Make no mistake - torture is, and should be illegal.

But what I'm saying is if the "ground level" CIA agents asked their superiors if what they were doing was legal, and they were told "Yes it is", then HOW can you hold them accountable?

[brianbwb-2009]

"See you just listed the deffense of everyone involved in this, all this is a legal grey area and just becsause some bleeding heart lib calls this torture does not make any of it torture. In your words it is a legal grey area and Bush can use that same deffense." Posted by stimporksuks

Yo, failed neo, read this, it is not "some bleeding heart lib" calling it torture, it is a treaty to which we are signatories, thus constitutionally obligating us to observe.

".. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." ? UN Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

No "grey area", as you put it, anyone with a junior high school reading comprehension can understand it.

[hungry1968-15]

Help understand this logic you becasue you just sounded like Bush with the spin you put on this. You putting them in isolation becasue they caused and problem and to prevent tehm from cause more pronlems but you not doing it to punish them.

So I guess we put people prison becasue they broke the law and to prevent them from breaking the law again but we are not punishing them for breaking the law. WHew we my head is spinning on that one help to understand, you really need to visit Oreily so the spin can stop right there.
Posted by stimporksuks at 7:49 AM : Apr 17, 2009





Man alive...... They don't exist to punish the inmates.

Prisons exist to remove them from society so they don't harm anyone else, while they REHABILITATE the inmates, so that they may return as successful and productive members of society.

Granted most are vermin through and through, and will NEVER be productive members of society, and most that are released, do end up coming back to prison.

But prisons don't exist to punish inmates.

[jwind1]

AGAIN - you're comparing MURDER, SUMMARY EXECUTION, and ASSASSINATION to the "legal gray area" that our CIA officers operated under.

Did the Iraqi's or Nazi's in your example, KNOW that KILLING someone was illegal? Of course they did, how could they not?

Did our CIA officers KNOW that what they were doing was illegal? They didn't kill anyone, or permanently harm them, right?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 7:48 AM : Apr 17, 2009

just admit your opinion would be different if Obama authorized it....you make yourself look foolish with every post

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by tomtona

I can do you one better, because if one asks ones' self, one's answer may only be opinion. Lets hear what the UN convention against torture, to which we are signatories, and therefore constitutionally obliged to observe, says on the subject...

Article 2

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised."

Pretty clear, yes?

[hungry1968-15]

Apply your question to other Countries and your answer should reveal itself. Should Nazi war criminals be absolved of wrongdoing provided they were told by Hitler the actions were ok? How about the atrocities in Iraq? Didn't Saddam approve of the gassings? Should this negate prosecution of the acts?

War crimes do not cease to be war crimes because they were sanctioned by the upper brass.
Posted by tomtona at 7:40 AM : Apr 17, 2009





AGAIN - you're comparing MURDER, SUMMARY EXECUTION, and ASSASSINATION to the "legal gray area" that our CIA officers operated under.

Did the Iraqi's or Nazi's in your example, KNOW that KILLING someone was illegal? Of course they did, how could they not?

Did our CIA officers KNOW that what they were doing was illegal? They didn't kill anyone, or permanently harm them, right?

[jwind1]

But arent they uncomfortable being isolated?
Posted by mortar29 at 7:37 AM : Apr 17, 2009




Who cares?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 7:42 AM : Apr 17, 2009

hungry says as he loosens his belt

[hungry1968-15]

Good thing you arent running national defense!
Posted by mortar29 at 7:39 AM : Apr 17, 2009




Yeah - all that pesky "justice" and such.

We know how you conservatives hate that.

[hungry1968-15]

But arent they uncomfortable being isolated?
Posted by mortar29 at 7:37 AM : Apr 17, 2009




Who cares?

[jwind1]

hungry 1968 asks, "So you think that the CIA officers should be charged with crimes, even though the Bush regime told them that what they were doing was perfectly legal?"

Apply your question to other Countries and your answer should reveal itself. Should Nazi war criminals be absolved of wrongdoing provided they were told by Hitler the actions were ok? How about the atrocities in Iraq? Didn't Saddam approve of the gassings? Should this negate prosecution of the acts?

War crimes do not cease to be war crimes because they were sanctioned by the upper brass.
Posted by tomtona at 7:40 AM : Apr 17, 2009

only reason hungry is against it...or says he is...is because Bush authorized....he is an obama sheep

[tomtona]

hungry 1968 asks, "So you think that the CIA officers should be charged with crimes, even though the Bush regime told them that what they were doing was perfectly legal?"

Apply your question to other Countries and your answer should reveal itself. Should Nazi war criminals be absolved of wrongdoing provided they were told by Hitler the actions were ok? How about the atrocities in Iraq? Didn't Saddam approve of the gassings? Should this negate prosecution of the acts?

War crimes do not cease to be war crimes because they were sanctioned by the upper brass.