Torture regime

#1 - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
"I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved," Bush told ABC News' Martha Raddatz on Friday. "I don't know what's new about that; I'm not so sure what's so startling about that."
So there you have it - true.. we've had proof, we've had indication, and certainly reason to investigate, as well as administration obstruction. But a lot of people have said - and is still saying, like Obama for example, that we should only judge their "intents". And not go on a "witch hunt", to prosecute /policies/ we disagree with. Which is the same as immunizing any administration from anything, except from admitting to "high crimes and misdemeanors" themselves. In public.

Well, here's Bush saying right out that he's approved torture. Now what? Clearly some form of escalation against the President is warranted. ..What about prank calling the White House? :rolleyes:

Also, what do you think about Obama's standard for initiating impeachment proceedings?
Last edited:
..But breaking the law is not a problem, when your (apparently valid) excuse is that your Yoo and the DOJ said you could ignore the law as a matter of policy.

So we're only left with prosecuting the president for admitting he's breaking the law. Which, again, he's not actually doing, if their theory on executive power stands - and he can dictate what the law should be.

Example: Bush says (and this is described well on the link in the first post) that they do not torture. Then he says - that means it's legal what they are doing, because they've decided it's not torture, what they are doing. And since the administration has made use of all legal channels they feel is necessary to draw that conclusion, this means what they are doing is legal. I.e., Bush is not actually breaking the law when he's ordering torture, even though the law says - and has said for quite some time - that torture is illegal (or a war- crime, depending on context).

And so torture is legal. And noone will be prosecuted for torturing people. This is also clear after McCain and others caved on the torture- provision in the emergency supplemental bill, that would have brought all US personnel under the army field manual standard.

Anyway. So Obama says that ordering torture in this way is not sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings. Because it's a matter of policy, to torture people, and the intent of the president apparently is good. And therefore it's not enough. Because pursuing impeachment would be to prosecute the president for policy- differences - it would be a witch- hunt, because the two sides disagree on policy- issues, in this case torture. So the president would instead have to declare himself that he's breaking the law, before impeachment proceedings should start.

Still - isn't that simply a fundamental misunderstanding of what impeachment was meant to do? As well as a critical logical mistake concerning how to escape prosecution from breaking the law in any way? I.e., "it's a matter of policy, and you simply disagree, but it's still the law"?

Can the US really afford to have another president like that at the wheel? Or the present one for much longer? Think about Hillary declaring that up is down, and that the law is void as far as her policies are concerned. Does that sound very good?

Anyway - so, the US is still torturing prisoners legally. Kind of sucks, huh. Thank god they're just brown people so far, or there'd be.. mention of it in the media, I'm sure.

But then again - shouldn't the fat blonde guy who hates immigrants drag this up as a good policy every day, when the people who are tortured have names most people can't pronounce anyway?
Last edited:


e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
According to the posted article, Obama would have his Attorney General investigate whether or not a crime was committed by the Bush administration. I'm not sure, exactly, what it is you would have him do, Fleinn. Do you think he should simply insist that a crime was committed, prior to doing a full review of the evidence and relevant laws; and also promise to crusade tirelessly to prosecute his predecessor in office with no regards to the feasibility of actually getting a conviction? That would seem silly.
Last edited:
Yes, that would seem silly. But what could he do that isn't a witch- hunt? Evidently, if the only change that made it possible to prosecute anyone would be a change of president - aren't we missing the point, and confirming the problem that prevents any prosecution of the Bush- administration now?

Since again, it would be a matter of executive policy what the law would mean.

What I'm saying is that the law shouldn't be dependent on who's in charge. And that accepting the very high treshold Obama sets effectively will immunize any sitting president for abusing the law, through declaring it's a matter of policy. Whether it would be legalising torture, or whatever else.

The question was if that's a sound attitude towards any president.

And just to be clear - there's no question now that Bush admits to having ordered torture. That the highest officials were discussing ways to employ these techniques in interrogation. Bush even admits it. But it's still "a matter of policy", and they claim it is not torture, therefore it's legal. And if that's allowed to stand, then not only is torture legal - but the president is above the law.

I'm simply curious about what, if any, crime a president would have to do in order to be impeached by that standard. Obama hints that it would be only the president that can prosecute himself - and I think that's a curious and very dangerous idea. That runs contrary to anything the constitution says.
On the other hand, Obama was asked about /Hillary/'s little exaggeration about her war- credentials in Bosnia on the "debate" yesterday. So I guess we're not really interested - unless it's Obama's bowling score, perhaps? They missed that one, I think.

It was really bad, you know. Horrendous. Not good presidential material at all with that arm.
Last edited:
fleinn said:
Obama hints that it would be only the president that can prosecute himself - and I think that's a curious and very dangerous idea. That runs contrary to anything the constitution says.
Well that's actually just stupid: who in their right mind would prosecute themselves?
Oh, you know, someone of impeccable moral authority, clarity of vision, and with saintly leadership qualities that prevent him from doing anything wrong.. *cough*