Impeach Jay Bybee

Southern Man said:
He's right of course. Its not torture and isn't painful.
Click to expand...
So can I do it to your mother? Your Child? Your wife? I want you to watch while I do it and remind them it isn't painful and it isn't torture. Let me know where you wanna meet up and which family member you choose to make your point.
 
Southern Man said:
It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Its only torture if the government determines it is. When we used it at Gitmo the government determined that legally it was not. Now the government has changed its mind. According to ex post facto the folks that administered the waterboarding then did not commit torture.
Click to expand...
Using your logic then we should absolve all Germans of war crimes as it was only determined in hindsight that the behavior of the Germans was illegal.
 
Socrtease said:
So can I do it to your mother? ....
Click to expand...
Mum's dead butthead, but if you want to take a political argument personal I have no problem with that. PM me with your name, address, and when you are there and I'll drive right on over and manage the situation. :)
 
Socrtease said:
Using your logic then we should absolve all Germans of war crimes as it was only determined in hindsight that the behavior of the Germans was illegal.
Click to expand...
The Bush administration reviewed these techniques with a legal team prior to execution of the program. None of the vicious criminals who were interrogated were harmed. Explain how this equates with Hitler exterminating 6 million or so innocent people.

Unless of course you're one of those flakes who thinks Bush = Hitler. In that case just say so and don't waste my time with a weak explanation.
 
Southern Man said:
The usual ad-hom from you. My what a surprise.
Click to expand...


It may be an ad-hom but it is has the benefit of being true.

Additionally, this is a thread about impeaching one of the lawyers that created a legal justification for torture, not for prosecuting those that actually tortured people. Even if you were correct on what an ex post facto law is (you aren't) and whether a government lawyer can magically make things legal by writing a memorandum (they can't), why does that mean Bybee shouldn't be impeached?
 
Southern Man said:
The Bush administration reviewed these techniques with a legal team prior to execution of the program. None of the vicious criminals who were interrogated were harmed. Explain how this equates with Hitler exterminating 6 million or so innocent people.

Unless of course you're one of those flakes who thinks Bush = Hitler. In that case just say so and don't waste my time with a weak explanation.
Click to expand...


But the legal team was wrong and should be held to account, starting with impeachment of Bybee.
 
Special prosecutors have been empowered to use the method of non torture waterboarding in their interrogations of govt corruption.


I sort of wish.
 
Southern Man said:
The Bush administration reviewed these techniques with a legal team prior to execution of the program. None of the vicious criminals who were interrogated were harmed. Explain how this equates with Hitler exterminating 6 million or so innocent people.

Unless of course you're one of those flakes who thinks Bush = Hitler. In that case just say so and don't waste my time with a weak explanation.
Click to expand...

First off, contrary to what you and Richard Nixon think, just because the president says it is not illegal that does not make it so. Using your logic, our president could surround himself with a bunch of yes men who would write a legal opinion that searches of trailer homes are not covered by the fourth amendment because they have axles and therefore can be moved before a warrant could issue, and that would be the new legal view. The reason we have three branches of government is because we don't want one branch making rules then saying the rules they made are legal. Other people get to decide that.

As to my reference to Germany, you were talking about ex post facto laws and the War Crimes trials in Germany are in many cases prime examples of that. I was not comparing Hitler to Bush but the claim that you were making about ex post facto laws. But I don't expect you to get it.

And finally, sorry to hear that your mom is dead. Why don't you pick some other member of your family for waterboarding and then we can tell them it is not torture
 
Dungheap said:
But the legal team was wrong and should be held to account, starting with impeachment of Bybee.
Click to expand...
If you could review the case in an apolitical, legally technical environment, then I'd support it. However impeachment is a crude political process and is thus so nothing more than a witch hunt.
 
Socrtease said:
First off, contrary to what you and Richard Nixon think, just because the president says it is not illegal that does not make it so. Using your logic, our president could surround himself with a bunch of yes men who would write a legal opinion that searches of trailer homes are not covered by the fourth amendment because they have axles and therefore can be moved before a warrant could issue, and that would be the new legal view. The reason we have three branches of government is because we don't want one branch making rules then saying the rules they made are legal. Other people get to decide that.

As to my reference to Germany, you were talking about ex post facto laws and the War Crimes trials in Germany are in many cases prime examples of that. I was not comparing Hitler to Bush but the claim that you were making about ex post facto laws. But I don't expect you to get it.

And finally, sorry to hear that your mom is dead. Why don't you pick some other member of your family for waterboarding and then we can tell them it is not torture
Click to expand...

First off I don't agree with Nixon's statement. Secondly I believe that GWB isn't as dumb as you'd think and has his legal ass covered so good luck trying to prosecute him or anyone involved in the decision.

Third I am well versed in the Nuremberg trials and the problem with attempting to hold another sovereign country responsible for internal policies. I just don't see how it applies here. Apparently Spain agrees with me, which is why they dropped their silly accusations.

And finally, I accept your apology, weak as it is with your continued reference to my family. That being said, if one of them needed a painful and potentially lethal surgical procedure I would authorize it. Likewise there criminals needed to give us important information so I would authorize obtaining it by any legal means necessary. Water boarding would be a relatively easy decision since it isn't painful or life threatening.
 
Southern Man said:
It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Its only torture if the government determines it is. When we used it at Gitmo the government determined that legally it was not. Now the government has changed its mind. According to ex post facto the folks that administered the waterboarding then did not commit torture.
Click to expand...

yeah, and a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

would you trust the government if they said the moon was made out of blue cheese?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top