Show trials for Bush Administration

They did not adopt a torture policy nor remove the right to habeas corpus.
The US did not "remove the right to habeus corpus". In fact, when the court cases were all said and done that right was extended to a class of people who never had it before - enemies captured in wartime.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to fnd an example of that happening before in any other war fought by the United States.

As for torture 3 people waterboarded in 2003 hardly constitutes a "policy of torture".
 
The US did not "remove the right to habeus corpus". In fact, when the court cases were all said and done that right was extended to a class of people who never had it before - enemies captured in wartime.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to fnd an example of that happening before in any other war fought by the United States.

As for torture 3 people waterboarded in 2003 hardly constitutes a "policy of torture".

Don't assume that's what I was basing it on. The other techniques used - in concert - can rise to the level of torture legally too.

May I refer you to Philippe Sands and "The Torture Team" where a strong case is made not only for the top-down nature of the policy but for the characterization of cases where waterboarding was not employed as torture.

Semantics aside, Spain did not resort to detaining people indefinitely without trial - so the point remains - which policy "prevented attacks better" since both countries have not been attacked since the adoption of their respective approaches?
 
Last edited:
Philippe Sands in Vanity Fair:

The third document was an internal log that detailed the interrogation at Guantánamo of a man identified only as Detainee 063, whom we now know to be Mohammed al-Qahtani, allegedly a member of the 9/11 conspiracy and the so-called 20th hijacker. According to this log, the interrogation commenced on November 23, 2002, and continued until well into January. The techniques described by the log as having been used in the interrogation of Detainee 063 include all 15 approved by Rumsfeld.

“Was the detainee abused? Was he tortured?,” I asked Seltzer. Cruelty, humiliation, and the use of torture on detainees have long been prohibited by international law, including the Geneva Conventions and their Common Article 3. This total ban was reinforced in 1984 with the adoption of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which criminalizes torture and complicity in torture.

A careful and fastidious practitioner, Seltzer declined to give a straight yes or no answer. In her view the definition of torture is essentially a legal matter, which will turn on a particular set of facts. She explained that there is no such thing as a medical definition of torture, and that a doctor must look for pathology, the abnormal functioning of the body or the mind. We reviewed the definition of torture, as set out in the 1984 Convention, which is binding on 145 countries, including the United States. Torture includes “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.”

Seltzer had gone through the interrogation log, making notations. She used four different colors to highlight moments that struck her as noteworthy, and the grim document now looked bizarrely festive. Yellow indicated episodes of abusive treatment. Pink showed where the detainee’s rights were respected—where he was fed or given a break, or allowed to sleep. Green indicated the many instances of medical involvement, where al-Qahtani was given an enema or was hospitalized suffering from hypothermia. Finally, blue identified what Seltzer termed “expressions of distress.”

We talked about the methods of interrogation. “In terms of their effects,” she said, “I suspect that the individual techniques are less important than the fact that they were used over an extended period of time, and that several appear to be used together: in other words, the cumulative effect.” Detainee 063 was subjected to systematic sleep deprivation. He was shackled and cuffed; at times, head restraints were used. He was compelled to listen to threats to his family. The interrogation leveraged his sensitivities as a Muslim: he was shown pictures of scantily clad models, was touched by a female interrogator, was made to stand naked, and was forcibly shaved. He was denied the right to pray. A psychiatrist who witnessed the interrogation of Detainee 063 reported the use of dogs, intended to intimidate “by getting the dogs close to him and then having the dogs bark or act aggressively on command.” The temperature was changed, and 063 was subjected to extreme cold. Intravenous tubes were forced into his body, to provide nourishment when he would not eat or drink.

Detainee began to cry. Visibly shaken. Very emotional. Detainee cried. Disturbed. Detainee began to cry. Detainee bit the IV tube completely in two. Started moaning. Uncomfortable. Moaning. Began crying hard spontaneously. Crying and praying. Very agitated. Yelled. Agitated and violent. Detainee spat. Detainee proclaimed his innocence. Whining. Dizzy. Forgetting things. Angry. Upset. Yelled for Allah.

The blue highlights went on and on.

Urinated on himself. Began to cry. Asked God for forgiveness. Cried. Cried. Became violent. Began to cry. Broke down and cried. Began to pray and openly cried. Cried out to Allah several times. Trembled uncontrollably.


Was Detainee 063 subjected to severe mental pain or suffering? Torture is not a medical concept, Seltzer reminded me. “That said,” she went on, “over the period of 54 days there is enough evidence of distress to indicate that it would be very surprising indeed if it had not reached the threshold of severe mental pain.” She thought about the matter a little more and then presented it a different way: “If you put 12 clinicians in a room and asked them about this interrogation log, you might get different views about the effect and long-term consequences of these interrogation techniques. But I doubt that any one of them would claim that this individual had not suffered severe mental distress at the time of his interrogation, and possibly also severe physical distress.”​
This is definitely not an easy issue to determine: but the fact is that a fair case can be made that even non-waterboarded detainees were tortured. Some will likely disagree, but those that support the contention that the constellation of techniques when employed together, unceasingly, for months or years can amount to torture can do so with some credibility.
 
The US did not "remove the right to habeus corpus". In fact, when the court cases were all said and done that right was extended to a class of people who never had it before - enemies captured in wartime.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to fnd an example of that happening before in any other war fought by the United States.

As for torture 3 people waterboarded in 2003 hardly constitutes a "policy of torture".
You've been extensively educated on how the Bush administration violated the Geneva convention, and on how the US courts ruled that violations of international treaties to which the US is a signatory can, in fact, be subject to the same legal enforcement as any other law, since upon signing the treaties themselves gain force of law, and are thus under the jurisdiction of the courts.

At this point I have to assume you're just recycling talking points by rote.
 
FWIW: Most want inquiry into anti-terror tactics

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.
 
The US did not "remove the right to habeus corpus". In fact, when the court cases were all said and done that right was extended to a class of people who never had it before - enemies captured in wartime.

If you think I'm wrong feel free to fnd an example of that happening before in any other war fought by the United States.

War? You call that a war? Cluster**** in the desert is more like it.
And I don't recall previous instances of any class of people captured in cluster****time.
 
Then I say go for it. Bush left the door wide open by not pardoning a single member of his administration so it is more than obvious that he is willing to defend his actions but do it right, get grand jury indictments and go to trial. You and I know that will never happen because Bush acted well within his constitutional powers at every step of the way.
 
It's interesting how the Gallup site frames their own poll.

No Mandate for Criminal Probes of Bush Administration

But when you look at the actual poll it turns out they are ignoring their own results based on the wording of the questions.
... While Americans appear to support some kind of investigation into these matters, no more than 41% favor criminal probes.

... For each of three controversial actions or policies of the Bush administration, survey respondents were asked whether there should be a criminal investigation by the Justice Department or an investigation by an independent panel that would issue a report of findings but not seek any criminal charges, or whether neither should be done.
So 62% to 71% want an investigation into the 3 specific crimes asked about but because 40 or so % of those folks have already concluded the investigation should be looking for criminal intent/actions the Gallup folks are assuming those wanting an investigation first before drawing that conclusion must not think any criminal activity has occurred. I'd say that was certainly a soft pedal framing of those results.
 
It's interesting how the Gallup site frames their own poll.

No Mandate for Criminal Probes of Bush Administration

But when you look at the actual poll it turns out they are ignoring their own results based on the wording of the questions.So 62% to 71% want an investigation into the 3 specific crimes asked about but because 40 or so % of those folks have already concluded the investigation should be looking for criminal intent/actions the Gallup folks are assuming those wanting an investigation first before drawing that conclusion must not think any criminal activity has occurred. I'd say that was certainly a soft pedal framing of those results.
Then get 'er done. Indict Bush and Cheney. Let's get this to a real court.
 
Then get 'er done. Indict Bush and Cheney. Let's get this to a real court.
I think the ball may be rolling in that direction. Obama has to clean out the Justice Department of Regent Law School Attorneys first.
 
I think the ball may be rolling in that direction. Obama has to clean out the Justice Department of Regent Law School Attorneys first.
So in order to prosecute Bush for firing DOJ lawyers for political reasons he needs to fire DOJ lawyers for political reasons. That makes sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom