Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[Undertoad]

Did we help write the part that designates who a prisoner of war is?

You can't have a double standard - ignore the section of the law you don't want to apply - simply because it's convenient.

This isn't about torture, it's about law.

[sugarpop]

Torture is unacceptable, no matter who the prisoners are.

And ftr, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the prisoners at GITMO ARE entitled to the rules and laws of Justice under the Constitution, regardless of whether they are actual "prisoners of war" or not.

[Undertoad]

The waterboardings didn't happen at Gitmo. They happened elsewhere.

You wanted to prosecute Bush for war crimes. You have failed. Would you like to try again?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The waterboardings didn't happen at Gitmo. They happened elsewhere.

You wanted to prosecute Bush for war crimes. You have failed. Would you like to try again?

So what. We have still been in charge of prisons where torture occurred. Can you say Abu Ghraib (sp)? Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that we used waterboarding. That is from the horses mouth. How can you argue with that? It doesn't matter WHERE it occurred, it matters that WE DID IT.

And are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what has been reported.

There should be an independent investigation(s) into the bush administration and things they did over the course of their 8 years in power. I think they have seriously abused their power and should be held accountable.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what has been reported.

Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.

The torture that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.

There should be an independent investigation(s) into the bush administration and things they did over the course of their 8 years in power. I think they have seriously abused their power and should be held accountable.

This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.

You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

....This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.

You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.

Undertoad...I'm curious....do you include Bruce Fein as part of that "partisan fishing expedition" or "someone who allowed facts to get flimsy" because he is not a critical thinker?

President Barack Obama promised to restore the rule of law and to prevent future wrongdoing by high-level government officials.

To honor that promise, Mr. Obama should investigate, among others, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former White House political adviser Karl Rove. The crimes to be investigated should include complicity in torture, illegal surveillance, illegal detention, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Prosecutions should follow if the evidence convinces a grand jury to indict. ...

FEIN: The rule of law

Fein was a deputy AG under Reagan and later wrote one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton.

He is one of numerous Constitutional lawyers from across the legal spectrum who have "examined the verifiable facts" as least as much as you or I have and believe there are serious questions of law and possible abuse of power by Bush/Cheney.

The issue of whether or not it would get in the way of "Obama's ability to get things done" is a separate question unrelated to the rule of law.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.

The torture that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.

And all of that stuff is also considered torture.

This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.

You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.

Excuse me? You KNOW I'm a victim because I haven't followed YOUR LOGIC? Are you kidding me? I would hardly say John Dean is not a critical thinker, nor many of the other people who have written books about Bush (Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Kevin Phillips, etc.), or spoken out against him, many of them fellow republicans.

Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.

One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.

I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.

FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.

I may be wrong but I believe Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) apply to both POWs and civilians held in detention. The Bush interpretation was that prisoners held at Gitmo (and other black holes) were neither and he created his own new designation to circumvent treaty obligations.

I doubt that Bush could be tried for war crimes, however I do think there was compelling evidence that he may have committed impeachable offenses, including authorizing harsh interrogation techniques that met the standards of torture in the above treaties that the US signed.

One question for an impeachment trial might have been if Bush had the unilateral legal and constitutional authority to interpret Geneva and CAT simply based on a DoJ "finding" and w/o congressional or judicial review. I think there is a Supreme Court case that ruled that it is the legislative branch that is responsible for implementing legislation when there are questions of interpretation of treaty obligations...not the executive branch.

Water under the bridge...but all the more reason why I think we need an independent commission to review practices like the above and, IMO, the equally serious issues and questionable practices associated with Bush's interpretation of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) giving himself broader "war powers" than those designated in an AUMF.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin/John McCain) issued a pretty scathing bi-partisan report last year.

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the Committee’s inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.
...
On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President’s order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. While the President’s order stated that, as “a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions,” the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
...
Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding..., used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody
..
Conclusion 6: The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) interrogation program included at least one SERE training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, were consulted on the development of legal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions subsequently issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted legal obligations under U.S. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.

SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY (pdf)

The brunt of the report's criticism is leveled against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Woo, et al. (plausible deniabilityfor Bush/Cheney?)

But the question that needs to be asked and answered is if the president/Executive Branch can act unilaterally, w/o consultation with Congress and/or Judiciary, and "redefine the law" creating their own justification to circumvent US treaty obligations.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin/John McCain) issued a pretty scathing bi-partisan report last year.

The brunt of the report's criticism is leveled against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Woo, et al. (plausible deniabilityfor Bush/Cheney?)

But the question that needs to be asked and answered is if the president/Executive Branch can act unilaterally, w/o consultation with Congress and/or Judiciary, and "redefine the law" creating their own justification to circumvent US treaty obligations.

Well that is really unconstitutional. I mean, we have different branches of government to balance the power and keep abuse of power at bay, right? If the executive branch can just do whatever it feels like, why do we even need the other ones?

[Undertoad]

He is one of numerous Constitutional lawyers from across the legal spectrum who have "examined the verifiable facts" as least as much as you or I have and believe there are serious questions of law and presidential abuse of power by Bush/Cheney.

This is an Appeal to Authority, a classic fallacy of logic. It doesn't really prove anything and Mr. Fein's column gave us no new information.

Obama continued the Bush policies on FISA immunity and rendition secrets. Creeping fascism? Disregard of rule of law? Or an attempt to keep the country safe by using all available tools to do so? I don't know, let's just prosecute and figure that out during trials. Is that what you want? That's what Fein wants:

Mr. Obama should investigate, among others, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former White House political adviser Karl Rove. The crimes to be investigated should include complicity in torture, illegal surveillance, illegal detention, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Prosecutions should follow if the evidence convinces...

"I don't have any evidence. But if the court finds something..."

Or if somebody perjures themselves during trial... we're back to prosecuting blowjobs.

Undertoad...what I want to know and, IMO, what every American should want to know, is if a president can unilaterally and legally justify a Congressional Authorization of Military Force (AUMF)to use "any tools available" to keep American safe.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Many constitutional scholars believe that an AUMF does not authorize unlimited "war powers" or "any tool" that a president wants.

Yet this AUMF is what Bush used as a legal foundation for all of his actions....to have the NSA (since when is the NSA part of the US Armed Forces?) bypass the FISA courts...to have the DOJ determine that US treaty obligations may be circumvented.....

[Undertoad]

That is a different question than "should we prosecute all the administration officials we can think of?"

I sounds to me like you are willing to ignore the rule of law to allow a president to use "any tool necessary" to protect us.

Straw Man fallacy.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That is a different question than "should we prosecute all the administration officials we can think of?"

I dont know who suggested that.

Another straw man?