- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyersVIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.
Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.
UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers
Yeah, we're gonna go the third world route??
Hell we didn't even try Robert E Lee after the Civil War! Nixon didn't go after LBJ, Ford didn't go after Nixon, Reagan didn't go after Carter...
But no, Mr. Hope and Change, this is what you people really want? It's over folks, if we start prosecuting previous administrations...
UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers
Yeah, we're gonna go the third world route??
Hell we didn't even try Robert E Lee after the Civil War! Nixon didn't go after LBJ, Ford didn't go after Nixon, Reagan didn't go after Carter...
But no, Mr. Hope and Change, this is what you people really want? It's over folks, if we start prosecuting previous administrations...
Yes, that is absolutely what we want. No question about it. Should we torture? No. Did we torture? Yes according to both standing US and international definitions and law. Should the people who ordered it be tried for war crimes? Yes. We are America, we are better than those we are fighting but unfortunately some of you don't act like it.
Yes, that is absolutely what we want. No question about it. Should we torture? No. Did we torture? Yes according to both standing US and international definitions and law. Should the people who ordered it be tried for war crimes? Yes. We are America, we are better than those we are fighting but unfortunately some of you don't act like it.
Yes, that is absolutely what we want. No question about it. Should we torture? No. Did we torture? Yes according to both standing US and international definitions and law. Should the people who ordered it be tried for war crimes? Yes. We are America, we are better than those we are fighting but unfortunately some of you don't act like it.
So, even if we assume laws were broken here . . .
A lawyer who advises a criminal may be prosecuted for it?
Do you people have any idea what kind of backwards, slack-jawed, anti-intellectual, illiberal idiocy you're spewing? Seriously?
I guess that means the right to counsel is out the window. And you people love to jabber about "shredding the Constitution."
...Would ANY lawyer in the world advise them either way and risk being jailed by the next admin?
I'll put it simply, for simple minds: The people who should be prosecuted are those who break the law. It's really that simple.
A lawyer giving a legal opinion DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW.
You people are so poisoned in your anti-Bush fervor that you DO NOT CARE what the consequences are; you want to "get him" at any cost -- even if that cost is the complete abandonment of any semblance of due process, the rule of law, liberal principles, and common fairness -- which is what you accuse Bush of.
Which is not only sickening, it's so unbelievably hypocritical that I don't even know where to begin.
So yes, I find this line of argument abhorrent, repugnant, and disgusting.
Well, let's start talking about prosecuting Obama for his use of airborne drones dropping missiles on civilians in Pakistan.
After all we are America, we are better than that.
Get ready Obama you ***damned war criminal.
Well, that's just what Bush's lawyers did. They assumed they were untouchable because they worked for the President. WRONG! Talk about balls! Water boarding has been illegal since before 1900, I believe. Yet, they arrogantly thought they could word policy to do it. It boggles the mind!
No man is supposed to be above the law. Whether they are prosecuted for their crimes is another matter.
I'll put it simply, for simple minds: The people who should be prosecuted are those who break the law. It's really that simple.
That means if someone (President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, etc) authorizes an illegal policy - he can be prosecuted.
If a lawyer gave advice, contrary to our laws there are ways to deal with him also. Prosecution is only one of them. i.e. (that means "for instance") It is against the law to lie under oath. If a lawyer advised his client to lie under oath he himself could be prosecuted. He could also be prosecuted if he even knew his client was going to lie because he is an "Officer of the Court".
Do you really think your name calling intimidates anyone? Do you think it gives any credence to your argument?
A lawyer giving a legal opinion DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW.
A lawyer who advises a criminal may be prosecuted for it?
I don't think it is “name calling” if it is merely an honest description of the arguments being made.
But you claiming he is "simple minded", that is a personal insult.
That would call for an opinion, a biased opinion.
Show me where I "claimed" he was simple minded. However, to argue like you do, would it be an insult... if it were true? :mrgreen:
Moderator's Warning: |
Hmmm, who's getting a wee bit emotional here? :3oops:
You chose to ignore my examples, per usual.
That's ok. Notice how you now use the word "opinion".
And Pelosi et al should be tried as accessories to the crime because they knew of it and said/did nothing.
Indeed, the question of prosecution seems driven solely by political inclinations.No man is supposed to be above the law. Whether they are prosecuted for their crimes is another matter.
But no, Mr. Hope and Change, this is what you people really want? It's over folks, if we start prosecuting previous administrations...
Indeed, the question of prosecution seems driven solely by political inclinations.
So how goes the Revolution, Comrade?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?