Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:30 PM Dec 2014

Obama doesn't give a shit about torture.

If he did, then in 2009 he would have recommended legislation to amend the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act to make waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques unambiguously criminal.

71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama doesn't give a shit about torture. (Original Post) Vattel Dec 2014 OP
The Geneva Conventions explicitly makes torture verboten. shraby Dec 2014 #1
Thanks for responding to the flamebait. elleng Dec 2014 #3
Why is this flamebait? This is a discussion we need to have. We need to strengthen rhett o rick Dec 2014 #40
I agree it's a discussion we need to have, but WITHOUT elleng Dec 2014 #41
Why the President doesn't do anything is part of the discussion. A big part. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #42
That was a bit flamebaitish, wasn't it? Still, the need for amendments to Vattel Dec 2014 #48
what's wrong "Obama doesn't give a shit"? ellenrr Dec 2014 #56
Our use of vulgar language contributes to deterioration of our society, imo. elleng Dec 2014 #65
But then it wouldn't be any fun LordGlenconner Dec 2014 #66
'Thanks' for that recognition, Lord. elleng Dec 2014 #68
I agree Andy823 Dec 2014 #67
'Thanks' I guess, Andy. elleng Dec 2014 #69
How likely it is to make a difference is hard to say, but I think it could make a difference. Vattel Dec 2014 #47
What laws? The ones I mentioned are the main ones. Vattel Dec 2014 #5
For uniformed soldiers captured in battle helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #11
They tortured people from Iraq. A war was declared on Iraq. Therefore the shraby Dec 2014 #23
How was war declared? nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #39
Congress gave the bush the authorization to use force in Iraq shraby Dec 2014 #44
Did they declare a war? I don't think so. This is not a war, this is bullshit. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #49
Actually, John Yoo cites PNAC war-promoter Scooter Libby to "declare war." OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #51
This is utter bullshit. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #53
I wouldn't put it that way but rather AtomicKitten Dec 2014 #2
One of the reasons he can get away with not prosecuting Vattel Dec 2014 #7
The US is signatory to at least two international treaties AtomicKitten Dec 2014 #10
Yes, but you can't prosecute it without criminal statutes. Vattel Dec 2014 #13
Yes you can! People died from the torture. Last I looked murder is a capital crime. shraby Dec 2014 #25
The problem is that statutes against murder generally don't apply to actions in war. Vattel Dec 2014 #32
How about on moral grounds? AtomicKitten Dec 2014 #28
I am not against prosecuting the torture that occurred under Bush, Vattel Dec 2014 #38
For soldiers captured in battle helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #14
The Torture Act makes torture of captured soldiers criminal Vattel Dec 2014 #18
They are not soldiers that's why we still have that CIA run prison in Somalia helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #21
Under the Torture Act, the victim doesn't have to be a soldier. Vattel Dec 2014 #29
I understand what you are saying , what I'm saying is we still have CIA run prisons helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #33
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Vattel Dec 2014 #35
Exactly , I don't think there should be some back room meeting's helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #37
There are processes in place already. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #4
No there are no good federal statutes that criminalize torture. Vattel Dec 2014 #6
These are war crimes, they are handled differently, not necessary by the US. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #8
If we rely on international law only Vattel Dec 2014 #9
And if the next president pardoned the guilty it would be over, it needs to be handled on Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #19
You are wrong in a very important way. Vattel Dec 2014 #27
What good would it do if the next president pardons the ones you think should be tried for torture? Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #34
You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vattel Dec 2014 #36
I am curious how the other laws work loyalsister Dec 2014 #45
Sure there are Aerows Dec 2014 #17
No, the fact that Yoo could argue Vattel Dec 2014 #24
Prosecute the criminals who are guilty of violating the law. Aerows Dec 2014 #12
Yes, enforce the laws, but also make sure the laws are well-written. Vattel Dec 2014 #15
Start with enforcing the law, period Aerows Dec 2014 #16
Fine, enforce current laws, but also amend the ones that need amending. Vattel Dec 2014 #31
shit. spanone Dec 2014 #20
I think he cares, he stopped the programs when he entered office or claims he did. Rex Dec 2014 #22
Well, there is caring and there is caring. Vattel Dec 2014 #26
Oh yes totally, hell he has the DoJ at his command. Rex Dec 2014 #30
This is deflectionary bullshit. OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #43
The law is not fine. Everyone knows it is vague. Vattel Dec 2014 #46
FFS, you'd rather torturers walk free than have Obama face any criticism. OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #50
Okay, this has no connection to reality. Vattel Dec 2014 #52
Finally! You got something correct! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #54
Here's your connection to reality: OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #58
I don't doubt that his mistreatment has resulted in prolonged mental harm. Vattel Dec 2014 #60
I find this discussion that the law is poorly-written and can't be enforced OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #61
You misrepresent what I say. I am not against enforcement. Vattel Dec 2014 #62
"But in addition to prosecuting past war crimes..." OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #63
OMG, are you serious? Vattel Dec 2014 #71
Agree if he did care he would have prosecuted Bush and Cheney ChosenUnWisely Dec 2014 #55
++ ellenrr Dec 2014 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Dec 2014 #59
This subject is so 3 weeks ago LordGlenconner Dec 2014 #64
Our guy has a right to be afraid of the CIA libodem Dec 2014 #70

shraby

(21,946 posts)
1. The Geneva Conventions explicitly makes torture verboten.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:37 PM
Dec 2014

There are enough laws making torture criminal, why would he need to change any?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
40. Why is this flamebait? This is a discussion we need to have. We need to strengthen
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:45 PM
Dec 2014

any and all laws we can. It most likely not do any good living in an Oligarchy that has no respect for laws or the Constitution. But we can't not try.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
42. Why the President doesn't do anything is part of the discussion. A big part.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:01 PM
Dec 2014

I share the OP's obvious frustration with the President's failure to do anything. He hasn't even condemned the actions let alone those that are responsible. He should make it very clear that the heroes are those that dared to stand up for humanity. Instead he lumped them in with the torturers. To take no action is to condone the actions.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
48. That was a bit flamebaitish, wasn't it? Still, the need for amendments to
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:07 PM
Dec 2014

strengthen our criminal laws against torture is really important, and Obama's neglect of this was a serious shortcoming.

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
56. what's wrong "Obama doesn't give a shit"?
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 07:57 AM
Dec 2014

a. it's true.
and
b. it's what the poster thinks, why shouldn't he/she say what they think?

or is this North Korea, and criticizing the big leader should get one executed?

elleng

(130,156 posts)
65. Our use of vulgar language contributes to deterioration of our society, imo.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:05 PM
Dec 2014

and how would you or OP writer KNOW such a thing? Clearly this is not North Korea, but criticizing the President in such a manner gets criticism from me.

 

LordGlenconner

(1,348 posts)
66. But then it wouldn't be any fun
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:05 PM
Dec 2014

Without being able to use it as a pretext to bash the POTUS many here wouldn't give a damn about torture.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
67. I agree
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:09 PM
Dec 2014

Of course without the "Obama doesn't give a shit" BS, it doesn't get as much attention, recs, and support from the usual Obama bashers.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
47. How likely it is to make a difference is hard to say, but I think it could make a difference.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:54 PM
Dec 2014

Even the Bush Administration felt the need to get people like Yoo and Bybee to give legal cover to their torture program. With unambiguous statutes, such legal cover is much more difficult to provide.

 

helpmetohelpyou

(589 posts)
11. For uniformed soldiers captured in battle
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:55 PM
Dec 2014

The whole thing was always the people captured in the WOR did not fall
under Geneva Convention laws

shraby

(21,946 posts)
23. They tortured people from Iraq. A war was declared on Iraq. Therefore the
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:07 PM
Dec 2014

Geneva Conventions DO apply.
They tortured people from Afghanistan. There are torture statutes that need to be enforced. The BIG problem is no one is enforcing them. At least 1 person and probably more died from the torture. There is NO statute of limitations on murder and that's what that was.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
49. Did they declare a war? I don't think so. This is not a war, this is bullshit.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 12:00 AM
Dec 2014

Congress has to violate the Constitution to abrogate their responsibility to declare war.

If Congress can say that the Constitutional responsibility to declare war is transferred to the president, then why don't they just say all their powers are transferred to the president? BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW IT.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
51. Actually, John Yoo cites PNAC war-promoter Scooter Libby to "declare war."
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:59 AM
Dec 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, II
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FROM:

John C. Yoo
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Robert J. Delahunty
Special Counsel

RE: Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States

It is vital to grasp that attacks on this scale and with these consequences are "more akin to war than terrorism."1

Lewis Libby, Legal Authority for a Domestic Military Role in Homeland Defense, in Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, &. George D. Wilson (eds.), The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons 305, 305 (1999).
 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
2. I wouldn't put it that way but rather
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:40 PM
Dec 2014

he is shirking his responsibility to prosecute under already in place domestic and international laws and treaties.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
7. One of the reasons he can get away with not prosecuting
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:49 PM
Dec 2014

is that the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act do not unambiguously criminalize waterboarding, etc.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
10. The US is signatory to at least two international treaties
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:52 PM
Dec 2014

expressly forbidding torture and mandating prosecution.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
13. Yes, but you can't prosecute it without criminal statutes.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:58 PM
Dec 2014

we have such statutes, but they are too vague and ambiguous.

shraby

(21,946 posts)
25. Yes you can! People died from the torture. Last I looked murder is a capital crime.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:09 PM
Dec 2014

no statute of limitations

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
32. The problem is that statutes against murder generally don't apply to actions in war.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:18 PM
Dec 2014

The War Crimes Act and the Torture Act do apply to actions in war. That is why they could be used to prosecute Bush and his fellow torturers. But they need to be strengthened.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
28. How about on moral grounds?
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:14 PM
Dec 2014

We prosecuted the shit out of Japan and Germany post WW2. Failing to do so now has all kinds of bad implications.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
38. I am not against prosecuting the torture that occurred under Bush,
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:36 PM
Dec 2014

but I don't think it is gonna happen. Looking forward, good criminal statutes against torture would make it less likely to happen in the future. We don't even need brand new statutes; just some amendments to existing statutes.

 

helpmetohelpyou

(589 posts)
14. For soldiers captured in battle
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:58 PM
Dec 2014

The people captured in the WOR does not fall under Geneva Convention laws

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
18. The Torture Act makes torture of captured soldiers criminal
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:02 PM
Dec 2014

even if the soldier is not protected under the Geneva Conventions. But its definition of torture sucks.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
29. Under the Torture Act, the victim doesn't have to be a soldier.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:14 PM
Dec 2014

Under the torture act, any citizen of the US who tortures someone anywhere in the world has committed a crime. The problem is that the definition of torture in the Torture Act needs to be improved.

 

helpmetohelpyou

(589 posts)
33. I understand what you are saying , what I'm saying is we still have CIA run prisons
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:19 PM
Dec 2014

and if you can find an interesting clip of Obama when he said.

I can't remember the exact quote but it went something like this.


When I first took office, one of the first things I did was stop some of the enhanced interrogation techniques.

He never says what he allowed and what he stopped.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
35. Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:22 PM
Dec 2014

yes, Obama hasn't even amended some of the Army Manual guidance that was altered under Bush to allow enhanced interrogation techniques. Much of what is still allowed by Obama should be unambiguously criminal IMHO.

 

helpmetohelpyou

(589 posts)
37. Exactly , I don't think there should be some back room meeting's
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:29 PM
Dec 2014

deciding what is torture and what is not .

It's pretty obvious if we are torturing another human being and none of it should be a fine line whether it is torture or not.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
9. If we rely on international law only
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:51 PM
Dec 2014

as a basis for prosecuting torture, we are really fucked. We need good federal criminal statutes.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
19. And if the next president pardoned the guilty it would be over, it needs to be handled on
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:03 PM
Dec 2014

International level.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
27. You are wrong in a very important way.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:11 PM
Dec 2014

Yes, presidents can pardon, but effective criminal statutes are still a better guard against torture than international law.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
34. What good would it do if the next president pardons the ones you think should be tried for torture?
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:20 PM
Dec 2014

In the US they would not be tried and it would be a closed case. Go back and see what happened to Richard Nixon and he was not charged with torture. Are you allowing your personal beliefs over rule reasonable results. In fact Obama probably has the ability to grant Bush, Cheney and whomever else you could name and it would be the end. Would you rather this result?

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
36. You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:26 PM
Dec 2014

Federal statutes that unambiguously criminalize torture might well deter torture by the CIA and the military even if the president has the power to pardon torture.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
45. I am curious how the other laws work
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:15 PM
Dec 2014

Can we enforce US domestic laws in other countries? If a law lies within military policy does it apply to civilian employees of contractors?
My inclination is to believe that it is all more complicated than "if there's a law- prosecute." With international law in the mix it gets even more complicated from where I sit.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
17. Sure there are
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:02 PM
Dec 2014

The fact that no one is getting prosecuted for torture under them says that no matter how stringent the laws are, unless you have people with the moral courage to stand up and be sanctimonious about "torturing some folks" by prosecuting them, the law is worthless.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
24. No, the fact that Yoo could argue
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:08 PM
Dec 2014

that the waterboarding done by the CIA did not violate the War Crimes Act or the Torture Act shows that the laws need to be amended to make them less ambiguous. Yoo's arguments were bad, but they weren't bad enough not to constitute an official DOJ position under Bush.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
12. Prosecute the criminals who are guilty of violating the law.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:55 PM
Dec 2014

If you stand by and choose not to prosecute a torturer, you are just as guilty as the juries that found Darren Wilson not culpable of a crime, set George Zimmerman loose and let the people that murdered Eric Garner go free.

Don't point at a crime and say "It is horrible that this wasn't prosecuted so that the criminals realize it won't be accepted in society" when there are plenty of "It is horrible that this wasn't prosecuted so that the criminals realize it won't be accepted in society".

Don't torture people, and enforce the laws as you are OBLIGATED to do when Americans do it.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
15. Yes, enforce the laws, but also make sure the laws are well-written.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 06:59 PM
Dec 2014

We need to improve the laws we have against torture.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
16. Start with enforcing the law, period
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:00 PM
Dec 2014

If we can't even enforce what we already have on the books, it's pointless to create even more laws that will be ignored in favor of political expediency, and that is exactly what happened here.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
22. I think he cares, he stopped the programs when he entered office or claims he did.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:06 PM
Dec 2014

So far I have not seen any reporting on torture under this administration. If he did not care, then why even bother to halt those programs? That he allegedly knows about?

I think the CIA is doing whatever the fuck it wants to and nobody will stand up to them. Not Obama, not Congress.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
26. Well, there is caring and there is caring.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:09 PM
Dec 2014

You are right that he cared enough to give a relatively meaningless executive order prohibiting waterboarding. But everyone knows that such an order can be rescinded by the President at any time, and better criminal statutes would be a much stronger protection against future torture.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
30. Oh yes totally, hell he has the DoJ at his command.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:15 PM
Dec 2014

He could actually try and prosecute Bush and gang for war crimes if he really meant it. Everyone knows the BFEE started the war in Iraq based on known lies (which led to atrocities that can be directly linked to Cheney and Rummy and now (thanks to Cheney) Bush himself...if a lawyer cannot run with that, then we are doomed.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
43. This is deflectionary bullshit.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:42 PM
Dec 2014
It's not Obama's fault! The law's written poorly!

The law's fine; the legal opinion is ridiculous.

Here's Bybee's legal opinion:

Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside of the United States {to} commit or attempt to commit torture." Section 2340(1) defines torture as:

an act committed by a person acting under the 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 of physical control.


1&U.S.C. § 2340(1). As we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of 2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the act inflicted severe pain or suffering.

Section 2340 is pain that is difficult for the individual to endure and is of an intensity akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury.

We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2). Those predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) 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; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U,S.C. § 2340(2XA}-{D), As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive, See Section2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support a charge under Section 2340A based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. See id. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requirement, the prohibition has not been violated. See id.

Specific Intent. To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. As we previously opined, to have the required specific intent, an individual must expressly intend to cause such severe pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3 citing Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 267 (2000). We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent. See id. at 4 citing South Atl. Lmtd. Ptrshp. of Tenn. v. Reise, 218 F.3d 518, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering. See id. citing Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991). Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is a reasonable basis for it. See id. at 5. Good faith may be established by, among other things, the reliance of the advice of experts. See id at 8.

Furthermore, no specific intent to cause severe mental pain or suffering appears to be present. As we explained in our recent opinion, an individual must have the specific intent to cause prolonged mental harm in order to have the specific intent to inflict severe mental pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3. Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of a sustained duration, e.g~ harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner. As we indicated above, a good faith belief can negate this element. Accordingly, if an individual conducting the interrogation has a good faith belief that the procedures he will apply, separately or together, would not result in prolonged mental harm, that individual lacks the requisite specific intent. This conclusion concerning specific intent is further bolstered by the due diligence that has been conducted concerning the effects of these interrogation procedures.
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
46. The law is not fine. Everyone knows it is vague.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:47 PM
Dec 2014

For example, when you define "severe mental harm" as "prolonged mental harm . . ." you have vagueness because "prolonged" is a vague predicate. How long is prolonged? An hour? A day? A month? A year? The statute doesn't say, and there are no precedents to add precision.

By the way, you never said what part of Bybee's memorandum you find fault with.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
50. FFS, you'd rather torturers walk free than have Obama face any criticism.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:44 AM
Dec 2014

Let me ask YOU: How long does it take someone to get over being anally-raped with a feeding tube, resulting in a prolapsed rectum?

An hour? A day? A month? A year? Don't know? Hmm.... "Vague," alright. Well, I guess it's not torture then.

I find fault with all of Bybee's memo. (That you would ask leads me to believe that you actually concur with Bybee et al.)

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
60. I don't doubt that his mistreatment has resulted in prolonged mental harm.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 11:39 AM
Dec 2014

What I doubt is that this somehow undermines what I am saying. You seem to be very angry that I believe that our federal laws against torture and war crimes need to be improved. You do realize, I hope, that it is my opposition to torture that motivates my desire to amend the laws. The Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that it would no longer prohibit all article 3 violations of the Geneva Conventions. Are you even against repealing those amendments?

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
61. I find this discussion that the law is poorly-written and can't be enforced
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 12:08 PM
Dec 2014

to be dishonest, an excuse to commit crimes against humanity and an apology for failing to prosecute.

You don't doubt that his mistreatment has resulted in prolonged mental harm, per se, but you cite the law's "vagueness" as a reason not to enforce it.

There's nothing we can do! It's the law! (Throws hands up and walks out.)

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
62. You misrepresent what I say. I am not against enforcement.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 12:12 PM
Dec 2014

But in addition to prosecuting past war crimes we should make sure that we have a good set of criminal statutes to deter possible future war crimes.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
63. "But in addition to prosecuting past war crimes..."
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 12:41 PM
Dec 2014

When? Nuremberg?

What would deter future "possible" (still unsure about waterboarding?) war crimes would be to reject bullshit justifications like Yoo's Eighth Amendment claim (The Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply because the detainees have never been charged, let alone prosecuted, so it's all good!) and prosecute high-ranking officials.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
71. OMG, are you serious?
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 09:28 PM
Dec 2014

I am agreeing with you that we should prosecute the war crimes of the Bush administration. And I agree that Yoo's and Bybee's arguments are crap. What I am saying is that we can better deter future war crimes if the War Crimes Act is improved. Maybe you are unaware of this, but in 2005 the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act to make it weaker. I am sure you would not like those amendments (if you knew what they were). I would like to new amendments that would strengthen the War Crimes Act.

 

ChosenUnWisely

(588 posts)
55. Agree if he did care he would have prosecuted Bush and Cheney
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 07:55 AM
Dec 2014

Instead he chooses to ignore it thereby making him an accessory after the fact.
If the next or a future administration decides to actually enforce the law not only will Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminals from that administration be tried for War Crimes also President Obama will be have tried too for failure to enforce the laws.

Until Bush, Cheney and EVERYONE else involved with War Crimes and those who used their office to protect the criminals are tried America will be a rogue nation pretty much run by lawless thugs,

Response to Vattel (Original post)

libodem

(19,288 posts)
70. Our guy has a right to be afraid of the CIA
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:20 PM
Dec 2014

Remember a President named, Jack Kennedy?

He has to play ball. This rogue shit is a fantasy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama doesn't give a shit...