16 Jul 10
Liar, liar! I think it's time to arrest Mssrs. Bush, Cheney and Rove. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I definitely heard repeating the mantra "The U.S. does not torture" during his regime. Now that we have proof of waterboarding, and a president who has announced that waterboarding IS torture, on with the hearings! 😛
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydhowever, it was not considered torture at the time.
Liar, liar! I think it's time to arrest Mssrs. Bush, Cheney and Rove. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I definitely heard repeating the mantra "The U.S. does not torture" during his regime. Now that we have proof of waterboarding, and a president who has announced that waterboarding IS torture, on with the hearings! 😛
16 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydHow interesting. Obviously, no rule of "LAW" exists by what you say here.
Now that we have proof of waterboarding, and a president who has announced that waterboarding IS torture, on with the hearings! 😛
If this president has power to institute "LAW", plus power to apply his new "LAW" retroactively, causing those you name to be imprisoned. It follows suit when a new president is elected in 2012 (as surely will be the case) and proclaims the "LAW" to be waterboarding is not torture, then those you named must be released and paid damages for their period of false imprisonment.
Of course, when another president is elected and re-proclaims the correct "LAW" as you see it, I would assume those you named would be re-incarcerated.
An obvious feature of the country in which you live is the fact it must be a dictatorship. There is no other way I can think of in which a president could set "LAW" on his own whimsey. In which case NO LAW exists there.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by MacSwainWhen it comes to foreign policy, the US president is essentially a de facto dictator. Only rarely does Congress step in and actually pass laws or take other measures to stop the commander-in-chief from commanding.
How interesting. Obviously, no rule of "LAW" exists by what you say here.
If this president has power to institute "LAW", plus power to apply his new "LAW" retroactively, causing those you name to be imprisoned. It follows suit when a new president is elected in 2012 (as surely will be the case) and proclaims the "LAW" to be waterboarding is not torture, ...[text shortened]... h a president could set "LAW" on his own whimsey. In which case NO LAW exists there.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIn which case my previous assessment of the situation there is correct. Thanks for the clarification.
When it comes to foreign policy, the US president is essentially a de facto dictator. Only rarely does Congress step in and actually pass laws or take other measures to stop the commander-in-chief from commanding.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf (when) US soldiers were waterboarded, do you think the Bush administration would have considered them to have been "tortured"? Or would it have went on TV and said they had only received "enhanced interrogation"?
however, it was not considered torture at the time.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by MacSwainI don't see it as a new president declaring a new law. When Nixon declared he was not a crook, after he resigned, the definition of the term "not a crook" did not change and, as a result, there were hearings held resulting in jail time for some of his cohorts (but sadly not Nixon). So to me, the president would not be instituting or setting a law on his own whimsy; he would simply be correcting something that was wrong from the beginning.
How interesting. Obviously, no rule of "LAW" exists by what you say here.
If this president has power to institute "LAW", plus power to apply his new "LAW" [b]retroactively, causing those you name to be imprisoned. It follows suit when a new president is elected in 2012 (as surely will be the case) and proclaims the "LAW" to be waterboarding is not t ...[text shortened]... h a president could set "LAW" on his own whimsey. In which case NO LAW exists there.[/b]
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf such words as "torture" are defined by the white house, then Bush did not lie. But then we could presumably also say that Clinton did not lie because he too had lawyers that defined the meaning "sex".
however, it was not considered torture at the time.
I suspect too that the white house can claim to own the definition of "WMDs", "terrorism" and a number of other words they use quite often.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYep. I do agree.
If such words as "torture" are defined by the white house, then Bush did not lie. But then we could presumably also say that Clinton did not lie because he too had lawyers that defined the meaning "sex".
I suspect too that the white house can claim to own the definition of "WMDs", "terrorism" and a number of other words they use quite often.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYep, any word they have a problem with they "redefine". Its called a government without checks and balances. Its called being dictated to.
If such words as "torture" are defined by the white house, then Bush did not lie. But then we could presumably also say that Clinton did not lie because he too had lawyers that defined the meaning "sex".
I suspect too that the white house can claim to own the definition of "WMDs", "terrorism" and a number of other words they use quite often.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think you have ever typed a single word of opposition to torture by the U.S. If you felt you were being 'dictated' to on this issue why did you never say so?
Yep, any word they have a problem with they "redefine". Its called a government without checks and balances. Its called being dictated to.