Re: NAT: Obama is spinning

[Jenn[_2_]]

ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 11:43 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > Note to Obama....leaving this issue to linger is not moving
> > > forward.
> > > It's clearly keeping your political options open. Any rational
> > > person
> > > can see that Congress, a wholy political body, cannot do anything
> > > apolitical. Suggesting otherwise is living in fantasy. Get
> > > friggin
> > > grip and close the door.
> >
> > Do you want to "close the door" if it is shown that torture was
> > happening in order to try to get the victims to say that there was a
> > tie
> > between OBL and SH?
>
> Torture is a subjective term. Waterboarding was not considered
> torture.
> Some people want to claim that the use of aggressive dogs is torture
> to muslims because of their disdain for dogs.
> Will every guard who used a dog to police his charges be considered a
> torturer?
> Others consider keeping them confined to small cells is torture, so
> now Obama is a torturer. Should he be prosecuted by the next
> administration when it redefines torture?
>
> A an article I've found worth reading.
>
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/mar/22/definition-terror/
>
> and here's the new congressional definiton of torture.
>
> http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin/news/YaBB.pl?num=1240350646/0
>
> 10. Section 2340 provides in full:
>
> As used in this chapter--
>
> (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of
> law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
> suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
> sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
> control;
>
> (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm
> caused by or resulting from--
>
> (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
> physical pain or suffering;
>
> (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
> application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures
> calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
>
> (C) the threat of imminent death; or
>
> (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
> death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
> application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
> to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
>
> (3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, the
> District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and
> possessions of the United States.
>
> Now please explain to me exactly what this means, "intended to inflict
> severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or
> suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)".
>
> Even in the midst of this controversy Congress fails to provide a
> clear definition of torture. Looks to me like any form of coercion
> can be construed to be intended to inflict severe mental pain or
> suffering. So anyone asking a question you know a captive doesn't
> want to answer inflict mental pain....severity is subjective.
>
> Item C is also interesting. Notice that any capital punishment threat
> by a prosecutor is now considered torture.
>
> ScottW

The question is: would you "shut the door" if it was found that the
Bush administration pushed the interegators to get two prisoners to say
that there was an operational tie between OBL and SH, in order to
justify invading Iraq, and led to two people being waterboarded over 200
times between them?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> The question is: would you "shut the door" if it was found that the
> Bush administration pushed the interegators to get two prisoners to say
> that there was an operational tie between OBL and SH, in order to
> justify invading Iraq, and led to two people being waterboarded over 200
> times between them?

Scottie has given this question great 'thought'. After 'careful' weighing
of the pro's™ and con's™ (LOL), Witless has forced himself to believe that
the only words spoken by a suspect under torture are the 'truth'. He
'knows' that evildoers always lie if you interrogate them humanely, and
they only tell the truth if you humiliate, punish, or maim them.

Where is your suspension of disbelief, Mistress? Don't you want Dick
Cheney's fairy godmother to lead us to 'victory' using magical spells?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 22, 3:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 11:43 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Note to Obama....leaving this issue to linger is not moving
> > > > > forward.
> > > > > It's clearly keeping your political options open. *Any rational
> > > > > person
> > > > > can see that Congress, a wholy political body, cannot do anything
> > > > > apolitical. *Suggesting otherwise is living in fantasy. Get
> > > > > friggin
> > > > > grip and close the door.
> >
> > > > Do you want to "close the door" if it is shown that torture was
> > > > happening in order to try to get the victims to say that there was a
> > > > tie
> > > > between OBL and SH?
> >
> > > *Torture is a subjective term. *Waterboarding was not considered
> > > torture.
> > > Some people want to claim that the use of aggressive dogs is torture
> > > to muslims because of their disdain for dogs.
> > > Will every guard who used a dog to police his charges be considered a
> > > torturer?
> > > Others consider keeping them confined to small cells is torture, so
> > > now Obama is a torturer. *Should he be prosecuted by the next
> > > administration when it redefines torture?
> >
> > > A an article I've found worth reading.
> >
> > >http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/mar/22/definition-terror/
> >
> > > and here's the new congressional definiton of torture.
> >
> > >http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin/news/YaBB.pl?num=1240350646/0
> >
> > > 10. Section 2340 provides in full:
> >
> > > As used in this chapter--
> >
> > > (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of
> > > law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
> > > suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
> > > sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
> > > control;
> >
> > > (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm
> > > caused by or resulting from--
> >
> > > (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
> > > physical pain or suffering;
> >
> > > (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
> > > application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures
> > > calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
> >
> > > (C) the threat of imminent death; or
> >
> > > (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
> > > death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
> > > application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
> > > to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
> >
> > > (3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, the
> > > District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and
> > > possessions of the United States.
> >
> > > Now please explain to me exactly what this means, "intended to inflict
> > > severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or
> > > suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)".
> >
> > > Even in the midst of this controversy Congress fails to provide a
> > > clear definition of torture. *Looks to me like any form of coercion
> > > can be construed to be intended to inflict severe mental pain or
> > > suffering. * So anyone asking a question you know a captive doesn't
> > > want to answer inflict mental pain....severity is subjective.
> >
> > > Item C is also interesting. *Notice that any capital punishment threat
> > > by a prosecutor is now considered torture.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > The question is: *would you "shut the door" if it was found that the
> > Bush administration pushed the interegators to get two prisoners to say
> > that there was an operational tie between OBL and SH, in order to
> > justify invading Iraq, and led to two people being waterboarded over 200
> > times between them?
>
> So torture is off the table. Good.

No, I'm trying to get the question answered. There's no doubt in my
mind that waterboarding is torture.

> The answer is of course.
> At the time Saddams perceived WMD program in hands of terrorists was
> a far greater perceived threat than hijacked planes and knowing the
> scope of those ties was important.

It appears that the administration was looking for ties between OBL and
SH to justify an Iraq invasion, and was willing to order as many
instances of waterboarding as it took to get a "confession". You don't
find this to be scandalous?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 23, 3:01*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:08*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > * So torture is off the table. *Good.
>
> > No, I'm trying to get the question answered. *There's no doubt in my
> > mind that waterboarding is torture.
>
> * Thankfully your opinion carries no legal weight. *The fact remains
> that even after congress issues a new law defining torture, it remains
> subjective.

BZZZZT. Exceptions do not make a thing subjective.

> > > * The answer is of course.
> > > *At the time Saddams perceived WMD program in hands of terrorists was
> > > a far greater perceived threat than hijacked planes and knowing the
> > > scope of those ties was important.
>
> > It appears that the administration was looking for ties between OBL and
> > SH to justify an Iraq invasion, and was willing to order as many
> > instances of waterboarding as it took to get a "confession". *You don't
> > find this to be scandalous?
>
> * I think it's pure speculation on motive.

Nobody who knows anything thinks that information derived from torture
is valid, 2pid. People will say whatever it takes to make the torture
stop. And anybody who knows anything about intelligence knows that it
has a very short shelf-life.

That's why confessions obtained under duress are most often barred
from criminal trials. And one has to wonder about over 200 torture
sessions. Unless they were all within 24-48 hours of capture the
intelligence is pretty much worthless.

> * And WTF does this have to do with criminal liability of those who
> rendered legal opinions on waterboarding? * Answer: Nothing

Wrong. Let's say the leadership of a corporation received legal advice
from their corporate counsel that a certain accoung trick, business
venture, or whatever was legal. What if afterward it was determined
that the advice was wrong?

The lawyer might be fired or disbarred, or put in jail along with the
corporate leadership. Why is that a good thing? Because if that wasn't
the case all somebody would have to do is have a legal opinion that
rape or robbery was OK to be absolved.

What you're trying to argue is that the opinion either should not be
looked at (or it isn't valid or 'right' to look at it) and that if it
is looked at all corporate legal counsel or corporate leadership is at
risk.

Is that an imbecilic position? Answer: of course it is. It's yours.
LoL.

> Yet that is what is being discussed by Obama and that is what
> threatens the whole system of our leaders being advised.

Duh.

What it threatens, 2pid, is ideologically-driven 'advice'.

I for one find that refreshing. Shouldn't legal advice be based on the
law and not on ideology?