Torture Memos plainly state that water-boarding constitutes the legal definition of torture

[Solly Mack]

Waterboarding Constitutes The Legal Definition Of Torture! video posted by L. Coyote (please view)


Got that?

Even while those pieces of shit at Bush's DOJ were twisting and turning and contorting the law to allow torture (water-boarding), they also admit that "water-boarding constitutes the legal definition of torture"

The memos themselves admit it.

So we're supposed to believe that a memo that plainly states that water-boarding is torture somehow means that water-boarding was done in "good faith" (defined as - the CIA believing their actions were legal) as long as the water-boarding took place with the memo in place? Remember - the same memo that states water-boarding is torture is also attempting to provide justifications for its use anyway.

The DOJ basically said - it constitutes the legal definition of torture but you can do it anyway.

So how can anyone claim the CIA thought water-boarding was legal (acting in "good faith") when the memo plainly states it isn't legal? (even with all the distortions to justify its use)

[EFerrari]

1. The whole "good faith" argument is ridiculous AND repulsive.

How do you slam a head against a wall in good faith, over and over? :shrug:

[Solly Mack]

2. You know I agree

[Crazyhorse1]

3. Torture

I think we're wasting words when we discuss what and what is not torture. Of course torture occurred. Bush and his cohorts, including those torturers just following orders are guilty or war crimes-- these things are beyond question and considering them overlong only serves to keep us away from a reality we find terribly unpleasant but must immediately face if we want to bring about a government committed to our country.

The fact is: Obama, in shielding known war criminals from prosecution, as he has already done in the United States and Spain, makes him not only complicit in war crimes but also quilty of obstruction of justice and failure to uphold his oath of office, which are impeachable offenses. Surely he knows that he has exposed himself in this way and risks losing his credibility at home and abroad because of it, so why has he?

If Obama ever reads this missive I hope he will note these words: Dear Sir, I have supported you with energy and fervor for years now and seriously believe that you should utterly cease protecting war criminals and embracing their practices-suspension of habeas corpus, rendition, torture and illegal prisons in Afghanistan, domestic spying without warrants, etc. in fear of impeachment and worse, Also, please note that if you do not desist I will be among the first to cry impeachment and support the filing of criminal charges against you-- regardless of the affection I have for you personally and the admiration I have for you in other arenas.

[EFerrari]

4. I don't think that's the case. It seems more that the administration

is maneuvering to pick their time and place. They know this isn't going to go away.

[chill_wind]

6. I think so too.

The lid to the whole Pandora's box of whatever legally comes next has been decisively ripped off. The door's been officially busted open.

I'd like to believe President Obama's careful language is meant as a temporizing effect in a momentary calm before an incredible storm he knows is coming, one he surely would have liked to forestall for longer than 3 months-- like you, I know he ultimately knows the difference between "retribution" and "justice" and I don't see him now getting in the way of what a whole country now needs to do.

What he DID in the face of tremendously ugly opposing forces speaks volumes to me more than any passing words.

I have hope that we are just getting started with what must now be finally fully faced and tended to.

[pat_k]

5. David Shuster was great last night.

[pleah]

7. K&R