"Enhanced" Interrogation

[KeatonKitsune]

I definitely agree with you. IMO, waterboarding is definitely against the treaty of the Geneva Conventions.

And since we signed the Geneva conventions that makes George Bush and the CIA director guilty of a war crime.

a)   Does breaking a treaty count as a war crime?
b)   The CIA directory, I can see, but would the president be legally guilty as well?
c)   That would be the decision of the court, not you or me.

[The Tao Of Bill]

I definitely agree with you. IMO, waterboarding is definitely against the treaty of the Geneva Conventions.

And since we signed the Geneva conventions that makes George Bush and the CIA director guilty of a war crime.

a)   Does breaking a treaty count as a war crime?
b)   The CIA directory, I can see, but would the president be legally guilty as well?
c)   That would be the decision of the court, not you or me.

If we signed a treaty that makes it as good of a law as any of our own.

Bush knows what the CIA is doing and yet threatens to veto a ban on waterboarding. That makes him an accessory. Whether or not it's his hand holding the water can over the heads of the prisoners or not. If he allows it to happen knowingly when he has full power to stop it then he is equally quilty.

And considering George Bush knows about this and refuses to ban it quite openly in a perfect world this would be an open and shut case. Unfortunately that's not how the world works and most likely George Bush will never be charged with anything.

[KeatonKitsune]

If we signed a treaty that makes it as good of a law as any of our own.

But does breaking a treaty equate to a war crime?

Bush knows what the CIA is doing and yet threatens to veto a ban on waterboarding. That makes him an accessory.

Threatening to support a (assumed) crime makes someone an accessory?

So the lawyers of criminals, who fight to let them go free, are also accessories? By this logic, they are.

I don’t see how threatening to veto the ban makes him an accessory. Especially keeping in mind the “threatening” part, meaning possible future. Both of these qualifiers, by the laws you so aptly quote and assert, absolutely mean that Bush is not guilty of any such thing.

And considering George Bush knows about this and refuses to ban it quite openly in a perfect world this would be an open and shut case.

First of all, I don’t think even the president could instantly ban anything, so Bush is not refusing to ban a thing. It’s not in his ability.

Secondly, I challenge your notion of a “perfect” world where any and everyone with even the slightest amount of guilt is equally and harshly punished, as you seem to suggest. The idea that in a “perfect” world, (combining two of your propositions) Bush would be put to death for waterboarding is quite sickening to me and reminds me of some of Hitler’s aspirations.

[Twilight Wolf]

Waterboarding Would Be Torture

Just some key points from it

CIA officials have been quoted as saying that water-boarding has been used on three prisoners since 2001, including al-Qaeda recruiter Abu Zubaydah, but on nobody since 2003.

In July 2007, President Bush signed a controversial executive order on the treatment of suspects detained by the CIA which did not outlaw the agency's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as water-boarding.

US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he was subjected to it.

In December, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding.

President George W Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which would require the agency to follow the rules adopted by the US Army and abide by the Geneva Conventions, if the Senate passes it.

So some key facts from this article:

The House of Representatives wishes to ban the use of the tactic, but the bill passed has been threatened to be vetoed.  No reason as to why yet.

The CIA states that it has not used it since 2003.

Bush did not outlaw the use of such a tactic in 2003.


As for all of this, I do not know why Bush is threatening a veto.  I would have to take a look at the bill first myself.  Maybe too much pork?  Oh well.

The CIA...well, take it for what it's worth.  They have a reason to lie (to avoid further controversy, to keep their tactics "Secret" so detainees cannot train to resist them in case of capture). 

As for the potential banning of it...I don't see why Bush would not outlaw it.  I mean, if what is being said is true, in that it has not been used since 2003, it seems like we have no reason to use it.  So why not outlaw it?  Yes, it would be superfluous, but it would not be harmful.  Like putting a stop sign at a blinking red light.  It does not do anyone harm to put it there, but at the same time, it is not needed.

Is is because of my pattern of thought above that leads me to believe that perhaps it either is still being used and we are being lied to, or we are planning to use it again.

[KeatonKitsune]

Damn it if it’s because of pork I’m going to be pissed. For once, why can’t people just put up a bill that does only one intended thing? This is kind of an important one, at least IMO.

At any rate, I’m glad to hear that it’s (reportedly) not been used since 2003, and I will believe that until given reason otherwise.

Maybe it will become one of those technically legal things that never gets used, like all the ridiculous laws that were never overturned, but would never be held up in court.