Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT Reveals The Torture "Tangle" That Could Lead To The Possible Indictment Of BUSCO For War Crimes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:47 AM
Original message
NYT Reveals The Torture "Tangle" That Could Lead To The Possible Indictment Of BUSCO For War Crimes
Edited on Thu Nov-01-07 07:53 AM by kpete
The Times headline tells us the “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases,” but further down we finally read that the “tangle” is the possible indictment of the President of the United States for war crimes:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/11/01/mukasey-waterboards-lindsey-graham/

Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.

“You would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it,” said Mr. Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke. “Theoretically, it could go all the way up to the president of the United States; that’s why he’ll never say it’s torture,” Mr. Silliman said of Mr. Mukasey.T
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01mukasey.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


.................

Is This Torture?

This post has a video with excerpts of a man being waterboarded. Decide for yourself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaj-larson/a-lesson-for-mukasey-why_b_70651.html#postComment

Lots of attempts to say torture is a gray issue in the video, I notice. Lots of talk about defining and regulating it. I admit to being a good (old-style) conservative on this issue. Principle: no torture. Exceptions: none. Defition of torture: oh come on, stop weaseling. One of the few things I agree with Dershowitz on -- we all know what's torture, we all know the US is doing it and let's stop pretending.

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071031/is_this_torture


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, This Is Pretty Amazing
I can't imagine that this is unknown to the few spineful creatures in Congress. Looks like they want Bush to be prosecuted - really amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. catch 22 here
He will either not admit that waterboarding is torture, and he'll be confirmed anyway or he will not admit that waterboarding is torture, his nomination will be killed and the "acting" Ag (HUGE b*sh stooge) will continue in the post..

Either way, we can look for BIG problems at the polls in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. One of the many reasons that we need to bring impeachment to the table
If for no other reason than to show the world that while this administration may be corrupt and criminal, the American public still believes in the rule of law. If we don't, then the implication is that we're becoming a lawless nation, willing to endorse anything, even torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. I see, so now the US apparently looks to Mukasey to define torture?
:shrug:

Look, just because he doesn't say it is doesn't mean it isn't.

The AG who authored "existing Justice Department legal opinions" was just shown the door and shown to be nothing more than a loyal lackey.

Why not discard those as discredited, which they are, and use the previously existing definitions, which makes more sense.

At which point, BushCo would be under indictment for war crimes, and we would be on the path to restoring America's standing on the International scene. Until BushCo is sent to the Hague to face the charges against them, our international reputation will remain in tatters. It's just that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Great links - missed this one yesterday
Just because the chain of orders might go all the way up to the top (as if we didn't have that suspicion anyway) is no reason to back away from investigation and prosecution. If it does go that far, all the more reason to pull it all out into the light and deal with it.

Kick. :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
6. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to...Torture!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. Just think of the list of countries Bush would never be able to visit again(just like Kissinger)...
Bush and Rumsey can bunk together somewhere that does not have an extradiction treaty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC