No one was supposed to believe that JFK was from Berlin. It was intended as symbolic, and never could be construed as literal, since everyone knew he was born in Boston and had US citizenship and had never been to Berlin.
It could only be symbolic.
Bush II - torture is still subject to debate, but that is a different story. There can be a serious issue as to whether waterboarding, the worst allegation is "torture." Trust me. I do legal analysis for a living.
"Not new taxes" a promise to try to achieve a goal. A promise that is not achieved for external reasons is not a lie.
I was born in S.F. Lie. I was born in L.A. Now way to rationalize my change of birthplace.
My Mom made me read the constititution when i was ten. ----- Lie.
When Obama gave his recent speech on Gitmo, he was standing in front of the Constitution. He said, "I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise that they offer. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land."
I am just curious as to Obama supporters. Do any of you believe that when he was living in Indonesial, when he was between six and ten years old, that his mother made him get up at before dawn to read the constitution?
That is when he was living as a child in a foreign land. Was he really reading the constituion at age 8?
Is just just, "I was living in a log cabin......"
Obama has been caught several times fabricating his childhood memories but you never know. I am sure this will be a right wing talking point if it is not already
For me, its the policies which concerns me and he has taken a moderate position on homeland security. A position I agree with.
You say you don't know, admitting he case been caught with fabrications, but you are sure it will be a "right wing talking point."
And if he is lying, what is wrong with people talking about it? If it shows a flagrant tendency to make up stuff, that is relevant as to whether he is trustworthy. Why shouldn't people talk about it?
People can talk about what they want and the corporate media will waste time debating something you can't prove in the first place. For me its not a Left/right issue. I made the same argument about Bush Air Guard service and DWI. What is the President doing to affect my day to day life, that what we SHOULD talk about.
it seems someone has taught him a pretty good work ethic.
All top level politicians have a "work ethic," at least as that means they will bust their balls to achieve their goal of power. (I am not saying this just as to the left. Apart from Truman, who didn't seek the VP or presidency, they all do this.)
However, his work ethic isn't a license to lie.
Work ethic and a seven-year old studying the constitution are different things.
and you believe he's lying about it. You aren't certain he is, like I'm not certain he is or is not.
plenty of kids, where their parents get them up before dawn, at least in the winter months, to do their homework and study for tests.
is what you are looking for, that is, his mother woke him up to read the constitution.
No, that is not he meant, his mother woke him up to study which allowed him to read these documents and go to Harvard become a constitutional Lawyer and teach constitution.
When you look for only fault in a person, one certainly becomes myopic and constipated.
She did wake him early every morning. If every parent pushed every kid the way she did, we would have hovercraft and 120 year lifespans....
He didn't say she woke him early in the morning to study. That would be wonderful if every parent did that.
He specifically said that she woke him every morning to study "the truths" of "these documents," standing in front of the constitution.
Here is the bottom line for me: He is the president now. He is not campaigning any more. He has a job to do. This is a great campaign address. "When I used to walk to school in the snow from my log cabin, my eyes still hurt from the strain of reading by the fire."
Get over the campaign stage. Yes, he is the president, which means that the world will listen to every word he says. That is why he has speech writers. You got the job. Live up to it.
That is the most strained explanation. "Mom woke me up at dawn to study this document" means "Mom woke me to study because some day I would go to law school and teach constitutional law."
This means if he meant to med school, as a doctor he could look at the constitution and say the same thing.
He uses words very exactly. He has a speech writer.
No, I am not looking for fault. I have already given him credit for some things that he did, so you can't say that with honesty.
This isn't "literal" meaning in a nit-picking legal sense. This is "does he just make up stuff?"
Anyway, I am glad that one one really believes it.
during WWII, which ended when I was 3 and 1/2 years old, my father was in Enfland then France, then Germany, my Uncle Herb was in North Africa then Italy, My uncle Sid was with MacArthur, and tohers, whose names I will not bore you with, were in the Navy and the Army Air Core. She would drill me ober a map of the World on the geography of the War and where she thought each of my relatives was, she would make me recite the Presidents of the US in order, she would review the instruments of the orchestra, and she would make me recite the ten commandments and the Bill of Rights.
Obama's mama was 18 when he was born and as driven I would guess as my mother. She probably did do that to make sure he never lost the sense of his Americanism, but who really cares. I remember seeing a matching of Reagan's public speeches with word for word scenes from some of hsi movies; that neither made him greater nor lesser as a President.
Do you think the WW II home front in 1943 had a different view of the world, patriotism, and the United States than did an American woman voluntarilty living in Indonesia in 1980 or around then?
Do you think that drilling people on the war when 3 relatives are fighting in three different fronts might be a little different than an American woman voluntarilty living in Indonesia in 1980 or around then?
I know a lot of people who grew up overseas when their parents were working there. None were drilled very morning at dawn on the constitution.
To compare the WW II experience and mentality to when and where he grew up is really a good try.
When Obama lived in Indonesia, he was 6 years old. That means he lived there in the 60's, not the 80's as you suggest. Remember the Civil Rights movement? I can see a white mother teaching her biracial child about the Constituion. Thanks for clarifying
and I imagine he meant that his mother taught him the basic principles of equal protection, due process, and freedom of speech without necessarily using those terms.
Hyperbole is stretching the truth. Lying is making it up.
You imagine he meant..... Every defender imagines he meant......
The man is a master at chosing words, and I say that in a favorable way, since I really like precise speech and the power of words.
If you have to "imagine" what he meant, he isn't doing a good job. He should say it.
John Kennedy certainly lied when he said “Ich bin Berliner.” George Bush lied when he said “We don’t torture”; George Bush Sr. lied when he said “Read my lips, no new taxes” Bill Clinton lied when he said “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski (okay, forget this one).
The point is that politicians have a kind of artistic license to exaggerate when they give speeches for purposes of making an important symbolic point. Now, in this case, it is entirely plausible that the President was actually 13 or 14 when his mother first started talking about constitutional rights, that she told him about this at breakfast one morning, that they had already moved to Hawaii, and many years later we have “My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land.”
Symbolic truth, Phil, not meant to be understood literally. They are times to hold him to literal accountability for his words.
This was not one of them.
Ronald Reagan's - I'm paying for this mike". He was not
No one was supposed to believe that JFK was from Berlin. It was intended as symbolic, and never could be construed as literal, since everyone knew he was born in Boston and had US citizenship and had never been to Berlin.
It could only be symbolic.
Bush II - torture is still subject to debate, but that is a different story. There can be a serious issue as to whether waterboarding, the worst allegation is "torture." Trust me. I do legal analysis for a living.
"Not new taxes" a promise to try to achieve a goal. A promise that is not achieved for external reasons is not a lie.
I was born in S.F. Lie. I was born in L.A. Now way to rationalize my change of birthplace.
My Mom made me read the constititution when i was ten. ----- Lie.
"There can be a serious issue as to whether waterboarding, the worst allegation is "torture." Trust me. I do legal analysis for a living."
That is not the question, although you can be forgiven for thinking so since this is the way the issue is framed in the media. The question is whether waterboarding as applied to a specific individual can reasonably [since this would send the question to the jury) be construed as “torture” within the torture statute definition, and if so whether the requisite intent is involved.
So let’s take, for example, the guy who was waterboarded 189 times in a month, or once every four hours.
Now, forget about the degree of pain caused (since that apparently is arguable) and note the statute treats “suffering” as distinct from severe pain but we’ll assume that “severe” modifies “suffering” as well.
(1) "torture" means 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 or physical control;
18 USC 2340(1).
Did he experience “severe suffering”?
Now when George Bush, knowing the guy had been waterboarded 189 times in a month, said “we don’t torture,” do you honestly see a serious issue as to whether he lied (unless he was clueless about the law and was just reading what they told him which is very possible?
How would your legal analysis get the president off the hook for this one?
You question was, "How would your legal analysis get the president off the hook for this one?"
I do not believe that we torture our own police, CIA, and/or military. Nonetheless, they are subject to painful experiences such as Tasars (Is that with a capital?), pepper spray, and, yes, waterboearding.
Therefore, I really don't know if waterboarding is torture, and cannot say the last one was a "lie."
Torture is one of degree. I had a client who cut of his wife's fingers, after making her hold out her hand. Bingo. Torture.
It reminds me of the photo of the Abu Grahib prison where the prisoner was standing on a block with a hood on his head and hooked up to electrodes. The electrodes were fake.
He was scared and humiliated, but under Saddam he the electrodes would be real. The difference is 1,000 watts, which is what I call torture.
I consider what other people do, like cutting off fingers, gouging out eyes, cutting off ears, stoning to death, 100 lashes until your back bone is visible.
WItht that in mind, I don't know if water boarding is torture. therefore, I can't say Bush lied.
Again the question I am posing is not whether waterboarding per se is torture bc I basically agree with all of your points on that.
But somehow you did not mention the guy who got it 189 times in a month, that is every day for 30 days, once every four hours. Don't think he did too much sleeping that month. See any "severe suffering" here at all?
Could a jury find that this guy was "tortured" within the meaning of the statute?
That is the real question.
The OLC ,our US federal courts and DOJ even under Holder have determined that waterboarding does not meet the defintion of torture when done as provided in the CIA Memos or done without specific intent .The CAT had the same reasoning with respect to specific intent and the nations that signed it knew this as well.
''Looking at much of the same law and ratification history that Bybee and Yoo had studied, the ten judges in the Pierre majority came to precisely the same conclusion: essentially, preferring the controversial 2002 OLC guidance to the 2004 OLC retraction. Furthermore, even the three judges who preferred to 2004 OLC analysis agreed that there could be no torture without proof that a government agent acted with the “knowledge or desire” that severe pain or suffering would result.''
''By a whopping 10–3 margin, the Third Circuit judges agreed with that argument. The “knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct,” the Pierre majority held, was “not enough for a finding of specific intent” to torture — the exactingly high mental state prescribed in the CAT and the torture statute. To prove torture, it would be necessary for a prosecutor to show “the additional deliberate and conscious purpose of accomplishing” severe pain and suffering. Without an evil motive to torture the victim, there is no torture even if great pain and suffering result.''
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=&w=MQ==
-- Modified on 5/23/2009 7:06:11 PM
which is a different question and which we debated last week to some confusion.
But really Tim your article is taking the quote from Pierre out of context. I urge you to read the case and you will see what I mean. Under Pierre, if the government agent has the intent to inflict severe pain or suffering to elicit information, the intent needed for torture is satisfied- this is precisely the intent the Bush officials had when they waterboarded the guy 189 times.
What happened in Pierre is that Haiti planned to imprison the guy for his crimes but NOT for the purpose of eliciting information or causing him suffering. Their prisons are so bad, however, that they admitted that he would in fact experience severe pain and suffering. The court properly said they lacked the specific intent to torture under CAT:
"Here, Pierre will not be imprisoned 1) to obtain
information or a confession from him, 2) to punish him for an
act he committed or is suspected of having committed, 3) to
intimidate or coerce him or someone else, or 4) for any
discriminatory reason.
...
In this vein, we note that Pierre does not dispute that the CAT
includes a specific intent requirement. Rather, Pierre argues
that the specific intent requirement can be satisfied by a
showing that the Haitian officials have knowledge that severe
pain or suffering is the practically certain outcome of his
imprisonment. We disagree that proof of knowledge on the
part of government officials that severe pain or suffering will be
the practically certain result of Pierre's detention satisfies
the specific intent requirement in the CAT. Rather, we are
persuaded by the discussion in Auguste that the
specific intent requirement, included in the ratification
history of the CAT, requires a petitioner to show that his
prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose to cause
him pain or suffering."
And while the judges properly found "there could be no torture without proof that a government agent acted with the “knowledge or desire” that severe pain or suffering would result.,'' that is NOT the same conclusion Bybee and Yoo reached.
They concluded (and I quoted from the memo below) that the pain had to be so severe that it was excrutiating and comparable to the pain that would cause death or organ failure. That is what is so outrageous and what no court had held.
Can't believe you guys are defending this.
I do not have to defend it a US federal court does that for me and get Phil to explain it to you 
And their concurrence on the next page replaces the other points
''Given the ratification history of the CAT, we conclude that
the CAT requires a showing of specific intent before the court can
make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.''
page 26 of decision
''By conflating purpose with specific intent, the majority has
excluded from the definition of torture those acts that we all would
agree constitute torture. Imagine the following situation:
A military official in Haiti desires
information from a detained, suspected
terrorist. His purpose in interrogating the
detainee is to solicit information. In the
course of the interrogation, he begins to
use coercive tactics. The official’s only
purpose and conscious desire is to receive
information. He is indifferent as to
whether his tactics (electric shock) cause
severe pain and suffering; indeed, he had
hoped that the detainee would give him
information without the infliction of pain
and suffering. The shock treatment is
administered and does cause severe pain
and suffering.
''Is this not torture? Under the majority’s interpretation, it is not.
Although obtaining information is an illicit purpose satisfying that
prong of CAT’s implementing regulations, the official’s conduct
will not meet the standard the majority has set for the specific
intent requirement; his purpose is to obtain information, not to
inflict severe pain and suffering.''
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062496p.pdf
-- Modified on 5/23/2009 11:17:32 PM
You are right. It is a slightly different question.
The number of times makes it a somewhat worse.
But it is still not cutting off an ear, bringing him in the next day to cut of a finger, wait a day to poke out an eye, well, it's Tuesday - how come he has 10 toes, now it's Wednesday - I wonder what a bullet to the kneee feel like.
Then remember the thing that started this - Lying. Lying is saying something that you know is not true.
If Bush believed this was not torture, which is reasonable under the rationale given above - we don't torture our troops, torture is extreme and this is not - then even if you are right, he was "mistaken" not "lying."
Likewise, if Bush authorized waterboarding in general, but didn't know it was 189 times (no president knows the details of everything) even then he would not be "lying" but under-informed and wrong. (I still don't think 189 times is torture for the reasons expressed above. But that is just assuming arguendo.)
(If I am right, he was not even "mistaken.")
Lying is especially pernicious if you know it is not true, but want to fool someone into thinking it is true.
If Obama knows his mother never woke him at 6:00 a.m. to study the Constitution, but says it, knowing it is false, to get people to believe it is true, that is classic lying and says something (I don't know what) about his character.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question more specifically. If not, call me on it.
Yes it would be easy with this argument
The OLC ,our US federal courts and DOJ even under Holder have determined that waterboarding does not meet the defintion of torture when done as provided in the CIA Memos or done without specific intent .The CAT had the same reasoning with respect to specific intent and the nations that signed it knew this as well.
''Looking at much of the same law and ratification history that Bybee and Yoo had studied, the ten judges in the Pierre majority came to precisely the same conclusion: essentially, preferring the controversial 2002 OLC guidance to the 2004 OLC retraction. Furthermore, even the three judges who preferred to 2004 OLC analysis agreed that there could be no torture without proof that a government agent acted with the “knowledge or desire” that severe pain or suffering would result.''
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=&w=MQ==
Phil what do you think about these arguments ?
I think they make good points that a reasonable person could infer that waterboarding is not torture .
albeit unwittingly.
If 12 reasonable people could find that 189 acts of waterboarding were NOT statutory torture, Timbow is implicitly conceding that it is a question for the jury. The indictment would be tossed only if the judge could conclude that no reasonable person could find that these acts constituted statutory torture. (Phil was careful to dodge this question by saying only that HE would not consider it torture).
The specific intent question is easy since the interrogators certainly had a specific intent to cause severe suffering to elicit information from the bad guy – in fact, they even told him to be ready for a “rough time.”
We’ll save the affirmative defense of “just following orders” and reliance on DOJ legal opinions (although apparently some of the waterboarding took place before the opinions were manufactured) for later, and the question of how high up the indictment goes. But at least we get the indictment against the line officers and the trial and the embarrassment of having what they did become public – this should take care of any future torture of the bad guys for a long time.
And if the jury acquits, the bad guys still have a civil action for damages under the federal version of the Section 1983 action where a lower standard of proof controls (Talk to O.J. about it). The spotlight will remain on this shameful part of our history for a long time.
No ,I was proving to you what the majority said because you could not grasp specific intent . Yes it was the minority opinion but it still shows the majority 10 judges did not think not think this reasoning was flawed.
As of now federal law says if waterboarding is done within the specifics of OLC or without specific intent it is not torture.
That doesn't change the fact that a federal appellate court has determined that it isn't torture. And 10 federal judges with reasonable minds that are smarter then you and I formed that opinion and I do not follow your logic saying that I made a case for proscecution .
In fact I did just the opposite showing you how the crux of the majority decision is specfic intent and without specific intent there is not torture .
Your idea that specific intent to cause severe suffering to elicit information from the bad guy would be laughed at by judge since they would use the standing law of this Pierre decision .
Did you even read page 26 that is the minority decision but shows how the majority ruled ?
''Is this not torture? Under the majority’s interpretation, it is not.
Although obtaining information is an illicit purpose satisfying that
prong of CAT’s implementing regulations, the official’s conduct
will not meet the standard the majority has set for the specific
intent requirement; his purpose is to obtain information, not to
inflict severe pain and suffering.''
''Given the ratification history of the CAT, we conclude that
the CAT requires a showing of specific intent before the court can
make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.''
-- Modified on 5/24/2009 6:04:30 PM
“That doesn't change the fact that a federal appellate court has determined that it isn't torture.”
Have you even read the case? The court in PIERRE v. ATTY. GEN. OF U.S., 528 F.3d 180 (3rd Cir. 2008) DID NOT determine that that the 189 acts of waterboarding of Mr. Abu Zubaydah were not torture. Nor did they even address whether waterboarding can ever be torture. They considered whether, for purposes of the convention against Torture, prison conditions in Haiti could amount to torture on the showing made by the plaintiff and concluded he had not carried his burden of showing the requisite specific intent.
“Your idea that specific intent to cause severe suffering to elicit information from the bad guy would be laughed at by judge since they would use the standing law of this Pierre decision.”
Um, Dude –you are WAY off here. First, Pierre was not even decided under the statute that criminalizes torture – it was decided under CAT, a completely different statute. So it is not “standing law” or as lawyers would say controlling law even in the Third Circuit on what constitutes torture under 18 USC 2340 et seq, although it would be persuasive to the extent that both statutes have the identical specific intent requirement, a debatable issue in itself.
Second, I hardly think the judge would be laughing since “my idea” is not actually “my idea” but exactly what the statute says:
(A) Torture. — The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 or physical control for the purpose of
obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
18 USC 2341. And this version of specific intent is now recognized by DOJ to be the correct one, and the Woo/Bybee version has been rejected.
"Did you even read page 26 that is the minority decision but shows how the majority ruled ?
'Is this not torture? Under the majority’s interpretation, it is not.
Although obtaining information is an illicit purpose satisfying that prong of CAT’s implementing regulations, the official’s conduct will not meet the standard the majority has set for the specific intent requirement; his purpose is to obtain information, not to inflict severe pain and suffering.''
Yes but you left the key fact that made this "not torture" under the majority interpretation of CAT. The dissent’s hypo was premised on the defendant being indifferent to whether his acts would cause severe pain and suffering:
A military official in Haiti desires information from
a detained, suspected terrorist. His purpose in
interrogating the detainee is to solicit information.
In the course of the interrogation, he begins to use
coercive tactics. The official's only purpose and
conscious desire is to receive information. He is
indifferent as to whether his tactics (electric shock)
cause severe pain and suffering; indeed, he had hoped
that the detainee would give him information without
the infliction of pain and suffering. The shock
treatment is administered and does cause severe pain
and suffering.
The Bush torturers were not indifferent – they wanted the guy to suffer to the point that he would give them the info. So a prosecutor would have no problem proving specific intent against these guys.
And from the Osterly Times
So, a right wing radio shock jock agrees to be waterboarded in order to prove that it is NOT torture. He changed his mind INSTANTLY. He now agrees that this is, "absolutely torture, absolutely, that's drowning!"
And, lets not forget, he knew that he could end this process at any time, a luxury which was not afforded to Cheney's victims.
The argument over this subject should now be considered over. Especially as this guy agreed to have this done specifically to prove that it was not torture.
Maybe Cheney can agree to be waterboarded publicly…
Just wish Sean Hannity would go do this....
No you are the one that is wrong and do not have the correct understanding of specific intent and you can dispute it all you want but it does not change the fact that a federal court has ruled that waterboarding would not be torture without specific intent .
No one is ever going to be prosecuted for waterboarding .
-- Modified on 5/24/2009 8:20:59 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
Also, the torture statute does not have in its defintion about obtaining information or a confession.
Under the torture statute,, there is no “information or confession” element and the “pain or suffering” element requires the person to have a conscious desire to inflict on the other immense pain or suffering.
What the dissenting opinons were in the Pierre case do not matter to the outcome of the decision in the case and it is the majority that does though regarding the specfic intent of torture .
You say the CIA agents were intentional and tried to induce pain and I say they did not but it was their intent to try to get information with waterboarding .
Even though the CIA agent knew pain would occur is not enought to tag him with torture .
And what these are on the forum are our opinions but regardless we are NEVER gonna see any proscecutions from waterboarding especially since the idiot Holder used the same narrow view himself of specific intent in Demjanjuk v. Holder to show no torture allegations .
-- Modified on 5/25/2009 2:56:28 PM
over the precise statute involved
When I say the Bush torturers should be prosecuted for torturing the bad guy, I am talking about a prosecution under the War Crimes statute. This statute criminalizes torture whether committed inside or outside the US by a US national or member of the armed forces:
(a) Offense. — Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. — The circumstances referred to in
subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
Subsection (d) is the one that I contend they violated and this is where I got the "torture for the purpose of obtaining information" specific intent
(d) Common Article 3 Violations. —
(1) Prohibited conduct. — In subsection (c)(3), the term "grave breach of common Article 3" means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the
international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture. — The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 or physical control for the purpose of
obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
18 USC 2441)d)(1)(A).
So while you are correct with respect to the statute you cited, that is NOT the one I am talking about and is not the statute construed by the Pierre court. This is why I cannot agree with your reliance on these other authorities.
"You say the CIA agents were intentional and tried to induce pain and I say they did not but it was their intent to try to get information with waterboarding .Even though the CIA agent knew pain would occur is not enought to tag him with torture."
This is where we still disagree. I do not follow you at all- the very purpose of inflicting the suffering was to obtain the info.
I know you are getting this from Pierre but you have to understand the facts that led the court to that conclusion-
Haiti simply intended to throw the guy in prison. They had no intent to cause him any pain although they knew their prisons were so bad he would suffer. Here the very purpose of the waterboarding was to cause suffering to make him talk.
Will Holder actually prosecute? I don’t know but we both agree he is an idiot at least as far as the hearing is concenred.
Is there at least probable cause to conclude that the Bush torturers violated 18 USC 2441)d)(1)(A)?
That is beyond dispute unless they brought in some foreign torturers to do the dirty work.
But the CIA agents did not use those methods just to inflict pain they had another reason to get information . In other words they did not use harsh methods to torture for enjoyment at the terrorists expense .
I am not sure how strict The US is in following that WAR Crimes statute with the convention at Geneva and if those CIA agents would be considered under the umbrella of US armed forces.
CAT is binding and Pieree was decided by 10 federal judges so that decison would be pertinent as far as specfic intent .
-- Modified on 5/25/2009 5:11:28 PM
Now I will parse the statute for you
(A) Torture. — The act of a person who commits… an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical … pain or suffering…. upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information ….
18 USC 2441)d)(1)(A).
So the specific intent required is one to inflict severe suffering for the purpose of obtaining information.
You actually have it right:
“But the CIA agents did not use those methods just to inflict pain they had another reason to get information . In other words they did not use harsh methods to torture for enjoyment at the terrorists expense .”
That is precisely the intent the statute dictates -an intent to inflcit the pain for the purpose of obtaining infromation. Stay away from CAT, stay away from Pierre, and just the read the statute. It is crystal clear.
You are right to raise the question whether "those CIA agents would be considered under the umbrella of US armed forces."
I don't think they are but I have assumed they are US nationals. I've also read the contractors were brought in to do some of the torture. But certainly to the extent President Bush knew all the facts and gave the order, he is the commander in chief and will be liable under the conspiracy clause of the statute.
I think national of the United States is(as defined in section 101 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act).
So CIA agents who are not US nationals in this sense would not apply .
I still think specfic intent
and using harsh measures solely for the purpose of pain and suffering and the key word is severe is different then using the intent to gain information.
I do not think waterboarding rise to this level but I know you disagree.
Good luck getting a US court to indict Bush for war Crimes . You are dreaming if you think this will ever happen .
And the UN War Crimes statute is not US law and would not have effect in the US and I think the US had reservations in connection with its ratification but have not had time to look at those issues.
-- Modified on 5/26/2009 12:52:33 AM
-- Modified on 5/26/2009 12:54:34 AM
Believe Obama when he says; "My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land," or you when you make the statement regarding him; "My Mom made me read the constititution when i was ten. ----- Lie."
I will choose to believe him, since I trust his motives more than yours.
And, because one of my most treasured possessions, as a child, was a copy of the Declaration of Independence I bought in DC at the age of nine. I didn't get up an read it before dawn, but I read it often. I just loved reading books on U.S. History, particularly the Revolutionary War.
Regarding getting up before dawn to study, I and many of my friends did so, and I know many kids who do so today.
Sounds like his mother was just preparing him to fulfill his role as an American citizen, not just assume it as part of his birthright. It's embarrassing how much more, many foreigners and legal immigrants, know about our history, form of government and historic documents than the average American citizen.
You say you read history, which very few people do.
From what I have seen, he has no sense of history. His explanation of Prague Spring was way, way off. His explanation that Brits didn't torture was just wrong. His theory that justice of ideas prevails, sure didn't help people in Warway, Cambodia, China, N. Korea.
Of all the people I knew in law school, none knew history. I have seen nothing that makes me think he knows anything other than politics. (I don't say that as a negative. He isn't an historian. Why should he know things out of his field?)
Yep , Kensington Palace Gardens and the idiot Kethie O tried to revise history saying there is no proof to show his Obamamessiah could not be wrong about Churchill 
But he does make many errors. For me the most laughble ione when he said his Uncle liberated Auswitch. Every student of history knows it was the Soviets.
It is kind of hard to believe that Churchill did not know what was going on at Kensington Palace Gardens
''For me the most laughble ione when he said his Uncle liberated Auswitch''
Yea I laughed at that one when Obama said it
-- Modified on 5/24/2009 12:16:14 AM
-- Modified on 5/24/2009 6:20:20 PM