100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Why do we have to wait and watch other countries do what we should be doing out of our own conscience? This question essentially means why don't we prosecute, which means why don't democrats prosecute. And the answer is because democrats are just as guilty of what was done, and even more is planned. Remaining untouchable has more value then honesty. The only ones I hear crying when an Independent investigation is proposed by the Dems is the Republicans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Garzon said he was acting under Spain's observance of the principle of universal justice, which allows crimes allegedly committed in other countries to be prosecuted in Spain".
Does that mean if an alien commits a crime on pluto, Spain can prosecute? They would have a better chance at a conviction if that was the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Garzon said he was acting under Spain's observance of the principle of universal justice, which allows crimes allegedly committed in other countries to be prosecuted in Spain". Does that mean if an alien commits a crime on pluto, Spain can prosecute? They would have a better chance at a conviction if that was the case. Under inter-planetary laws or the perps home-planet laws? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats a good question. Im not sure what universal laws are enforceable if committed by an illegal alien crossing the border from another universe. I guess it is going to depend on the definition of universal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover-Up
The Obama administration is resisting an independent inquiry into the Bush torture program because top Democrats like Pelosi were complicit in approving illegal methods Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover Up 240409top Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, April 24, 2009 We now know why top Democrats are protecting Bush administration officials from facing an inquiry into the illegal torture program - because several of them were actually complicit in giving their approval for such methods to be used. The White House stressed again yesterday that it would not be pursuing an investigation of key Bush administration officials, despite the manifestly provable fact that the order to torture came from the very top, which was re-affirmed with the recent release of the Senate Armed Services Committee report. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated yesterday, “I think the last few days might well be evidence of why something like this would likely just become a political back and forth.” “By (definition), an independent commission would probably not be something that I would weigh in on if Congress were to create one of those,” he told reporters, according to AFP. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said he opposed an independent torture probe, stating, “I think it would be very unwise, from my perspective, to start having commissions, boards, tribunals, until we find out what the facts are.” In addition, upon the recent release of the torture memos, Obama’s right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News that top Bush administration officials “should not be prosecuted either and that’s not the place that we go.” Obama’s statement that accompanied the release of the torture memos stated, “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.” (ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW) Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover Up obama 340x169 Why are top Democrats so vehemently opposed to an independent inquiry into the blatantly illegal Bush torture program? This goes further than the crony self-interests of the two party monopoly - it turns out that top Democrats had foreknowledge of the torture and actually provided their unmitigated approval for the methods when presented with them by the CIA. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s denial that Congress was informed that the CIA was illegally waterboarding detainees, the Senate committee report discovered that in 2002 Pelosi and three other members of Congress (one other Democrat and two Republicans) were given a virtual tour by the CIA of overseas detention sites and the torture tactics employed to try and make detainees talk. This was reported by the Washington Post in December 2007. Democrats Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), all held oversight roles during this period. The Post reports that the lawmakers raised “no objections” to the interrogation methods demonstrated by the CIA and that in fact, “at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.” So in summary, at least four top Democrats were aware as far back as 2002 that the CIA was using torture tactics which were illegal under the Geneva Conventions on detainees. They gave their approval for such measures and, along with Republicans, advised that even harsher torture methods be employed. Any independent investigation into the torture scandal will most probably uncover the fact that top Democrats like Pelosi, Harman, Graham and Rockefeller were complicit in approving the torture methods used by the CIA, which would also likely make them culpable to charges on the basis of knowingly covering up the fact that illegal actions which violate both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution were taking place. This is why Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic elite are so resistant to prosecuting Bush officials for devising the torture program - and have made every effort to protect them - because they were in on the fun and any truly independent inquiry would expose the fact that this whole debacle was a bipartisan cover-up from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the list of Politicians who voted in favor of Torture.
Aderholt Akin Alexander Andrews Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Barton (TX) Bass Bean Beauprez Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Chandler Chocola Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Cramer Crenshaw Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Etheridge Everett Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Flake Foley Forbes Ford Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gibbons Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Higgins Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis (SC) Issa Istook Jenkins Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kuhl (NY) LaHood Latham Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Moore (KS) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Osborne Otter Oxley Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salazar Saxton Schmidt Schwarz (MI) Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simmons Simpson Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Sodrel Souder Spratt Stearns Sullivan Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Shouldn't they be indicted also? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover-Up The Obama administration is resisting an independent inquiry into the Bush torture program because top Democrats like Pelosi were complicit in approving illegal methods Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover Up 240409top Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, April 24, 2009 We now know why top Democrats are protecting Bush administration officials from facing an inquiry into the illegal torture program - because several of them were actually complicit in giving their approval for such methods to be used. The White House stressed again yesterday that it would not be pursuing an investigation of key Bush administration officials, despite the manifestly provable fact that the order to torture came from the very top, which was re-affirmed with the recent release of the Senate Armed Services Committee report. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated yesterday, “I think the last few days might well be evidence of why something like this would likely just become a political back and forth.” “By (definition), an independent commission would probably not be something that I would weigh in on if Congress were to create one of those,” he told reporters, according to AFP. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said he opposed an independent torture probe, stating, “I think it would be very unwise, from my perspective, to start having commissions, boards, tribunals, until we find out what the facts are.” In addition, upon the recent release of the torture memos, Obama’s right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News that top Bush administration officials “should not be prosecuted either and that’s not the place that we go.” Obama’s statement that accompanied the release of the torture memos stated, “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.” (ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW) Top Democrats Complicit In Torture Cover Up obama 340x169 Why are top Democrats so vehemently opposed to an independent inquiry into the blatantly illegal Bush torture program? This goes further than the crony self-interests of the two party monopoly - it turns out that top Democrats had foreknowledge of the torture and actually provided their unmitigated approval for the methods when presented with them by the CIA. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s denial that Congress was informed that the CIA was illegally waterboarding detainees, the Senate committee report discovered that in 2002 Pelosi and three other members of Congress (one other Democrat and two Republicans) were given a virtual tour by the CIA of overseas detention sites and the torture tactics employed to try and make detainees talk. This was reported by the Washington Post in December 2007. Democrats Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), all held oversight roles during this period. The Post reports that the lawmakers raised “no objections” to the interrogation methods demonstrated by the CIA and that in fact, “at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.” So in summary, at least four top Democrats were aware as far back as 2002 that the CIA was using torture tactics which were illegal under the Geneva Conventions on detainees. They gave their approval for such measures and, along with Republicans, advised that even harsher torture methods be employed. Any independent investigation into the torture scandal will most probably uncover the fact that top Democrats like Pelosi, Harman, Graham and Rockefeller were complicit in approving the torture methods used by the CIA, which would also likely make them culpable to charges on the basis of knowingly covering up the fact that illegal actions which violate both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution were taking place. This is why Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic elite are so resistant to prosecuting Bush officials for devising the torture program - and have made every effort to protect them - because they were in on the fun and any truly independent inquiry would expose the fact that this whole debacle was a bipartisan cover-up from the very beginning. Opinion and not a very good one at that! It contradicts the fact that Pelosi is calling for an independent investigation the loudest, and it ignores the non-bipartisanship nature of an independent investigation! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Thu 04/30/09 08:34 AM
|
|
Wow willing!
A list of Senators! Are we just supposed to take your unbiased word that any of those people actually knew, or are you going to offer facts. At least offer some relationship between that list and the topic being discussed. With a link? Hope that's not asking to much. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did obama vote present
as usual or nay any one not voting nay is [imo] as guilty as those that voted yay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's back up!
Do we have to wait and watch other countries do what we should be doing out of our own conscience? We need to burn the Bush for our own credibility's sake!! Spanish judge opens Guantanamo investigation MADRID – Spain's top investigative magistrate opened an investigation into the Bush administration Wednesday over alleged torture of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Judge Baltasar Garzon said documents declassified by the new U.S. government suggest the practice was systematic. Garzon said he was acting under Spain's observance of the principle of universal justice, which allows crimes allegedly committed in other countries to be prosecuted in Spain. Garzon's move is separate from a complaint by human rights lawyers that seeks charges against six specific Bush administration officials they accuse of creating a legal framework to permit torture of suspects at Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. detention facilities. Spanish prosecutors on April 17 said any such probe should be carried out by the U.S. and recommended against it being launched in Spain. Garzon originally had that case, but ultimately it was transferred to another judge. Now, Garzon is opening a probe into "possible material authors" of torture, accomplices and those who gave torture orders, although he does not name anyone specifically. In a 10-page writ, he said documents on Bush-era treatment of prisoners, recently declassified by the Obama administration, "reveal what had been just an intuition: an authorized and systematic plan of torture and mistreatment of person denied freedom without any charge whatsoever and without the rights enjoyed by any detainee." Garzon cited media accounts of the documents and said he would ask the U.S. to send the documents to him. He said he is also acting on the basis of accounts by four former Guantanamo inmates who have alleged in Spanish courts that they were tortured at that U.S. prison in eastern Cuba. All four were once accused of belonging to a Spanish al-Qaida cell but eventually cleared of the accusations. One is a Spanish citizen, another is a Moroccan citizen who has lived in Spain for more than a decade and the other two are residents of Britain. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_us_torture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This bill, your link has nothing to do with authorizing torture! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what it actually says
---------------------------------------------------------------- S.3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate) Sec. 950rr. Torture `(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits 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, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct. `(b) Severe Mental Pain or Suffering Defined- In this section, the term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18. `Sec. 950ss. Cruel or inhuman treatment `(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control shall be punished, if death results to the victim, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to the victim, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct. Sec. 950ss. Cruel or inhuman treatment `(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control shall be punished, if death results to the victim, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to the victim, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct. `(b) Definitions- In this section: `(1) The term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18. `(2) The term `serious physical pain or suffering' means bodily injury that involves-- `(A) a substantial risk of death; `(B) extreme physical pain; `(C) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or `(D) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. `(3) The term `serious mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given the term `severe mental pain or suffering' in section 2340(2) of title 18, except that-- `(A) the term `serious' shall replace the term `severe' where it appears; and `(B) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commission Act of 2006, the term `serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)' shall replace the term `prolonged mental harm' where it appears. `Sec. 950tt. Intentionally causing serious bodily injury `(a) Offense- Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally causes serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct. `(b) Serious Bodily Injury Defined- In this section, the term `serious bodily injury' means bodily injury which involves-- `(1) a substantial risk of death; `(2) extreme physical pain; `(3) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or `(4) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109cm9XVM:e78370: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Thu 04/30/09 05:28 PM
|
|
term in section 2340(2) of title 18. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions (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; vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) 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; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i hope nothing happens to one of your family members but if it does and a KNOWN terrorist had info on it would it matter how they got it
from them? this country is great because we stole, piliaged , raped and murdered anyone in our way and now your gonna ***** about how it's done? what is the price your willing to pay for freedom? i don't think a few KNOWN murders should be givin this much thought let alone all the attention WAY TO GO BUSH!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This bill, your link has nothing to do with authorizing torture! Are you absolutely sure about that? The folks above voted it in. October 17, 2006, Bush signs the Military Commissions Act into law. It immunizes torturers retroactively to November 26, 1997. July 20, 2007, in accordance with the Military Commissions Act, Bush signs an Executive order allowing the CIA to engage in aggressive interrogation techniques but without specifying what they are claims that these will not amount to torture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i myself feel you treat those you deal with the way they treat you
if they chop off heads (they meaning with whom they are associated) then when dealing with them you can chop off heads that only makes since after all if they are will to be a suicide bomber whats a lil o lose of the head they still did it for their cause |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw that adj.
It does not authorize torture! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Thu 04/30/09 05:53 PM
|
|
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109cm9XVM:e78370:
Sec. 950ddd. Terrorism `Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more protected persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct. .............................................. SEC. 9. DETENTION COVERED BY REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION. Section 1005(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2742; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended by striking `the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba' and inserting `the United States'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a sentence.
A sentence after a trial where by the accussed is found guilty! |
|
|
|
|
