Gonz said:
Police are civil employees & must follow existing laws & regulations.
1. The US is a voluntary member of the UN & must follow existing laws & mandates.
"Is torture ever allowed?
No, under international and U.S. law. "It is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstances," according to a summary of existing law on the subject by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Torture is banned by many conventions and treaties. In international law they include:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly. It states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
- The 1949 Geneva Conventions, which lay out the humanitarian laws of war and occupation. Torture is considered a "grave breach" of the convention and, therefore, a war crime.
- The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that during interrogations, "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." The Fourth Convention, which lists protections for civilians, states that "Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to physical or moral coercion for the purposes of obtaining information from them or third parties.
- The 1984 Convention Against Torture, which states that "no exceptional circumstances, such as a state of war, threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture." Further, it makes a torturer responsible for his actions even if he was ordered to commit the crime. In addition, this convention makes torture a crime of "universal jurisdiction"--any country can prosecute torture that took place anywhere in the world, regardless of whether its citizens were involved.
- A variety of international declarations governing the proper treatment of detainees including: the 1955 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the 1990 Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners."
2. Bush is a U.S. citizen and federal employee & must follow existing laws & regulations.
"U.S. federal law, particularly U.S. Code 18, section 2340, which states that torture carries a sentence of up to 20 years, or, if the victim dies, life in prison or the death penalty. This section incorporates the 1984 Torture Convention into U.S. law with some changes.
The 1996 War Crimes Act makes torture and other grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions war crimes punishable by life in prison or the death penalty. It also broadens the definition of a war crime beyond what is mandated in international law. Under this act, for example, lesser violations of the Geneva Convention--for example, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" banned in common Article 3--can be prosecuted as war crimes."
3. Bush took a presidential oath & must follow what it says.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I'm going to assume you know what that thing says
The job of the military is to KILL & BREAK. Hardly constitutional.
Police are civil employees & must follow existing laws & regulations.
4. Soldiers are military employees & must follow existing laws & regulations.
"The Uniform Military Code of Justice, which applies to U.S. military personnel and bans cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to a soldier's orders."
5. Soldiers took an oath & must follow what it says.
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
But wait, he also agrees to obey the orders of the president...
this veteran explans what to do:
"Curiously, the oath of office for President of the United States has a clause in it similar to the first clause of the soldier's oath: "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." So what is one to do when the President violates his oath? The third part of the oath of enlistment specifically mentions obedience to the President, the Commander in Chief. What a predicament this places on the honor-bound soldier -- his oath in conflict with itself! As a veteran, I must take a closer look at this oath that I have held near my heart for so long. Of the three parts of the soldier's oath, obedience to the President is third, placing it in the lowest priority in my mind. Next, being only one of three parts of the oath, the greater weight is obviously given to the Constitution. Finally, unlike the other two parts of the oath, the section requiring obedience to the President is tucked inside a clause about adherence to military regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the only part of the oath specifically about the troop's conduct during the period of enlistment. This appears to be a deliberate tie into the military service of the new recruit, thus the one part of the oath that ends with the term of enlistment. From these, I see my marching orders written on the wall.
My first allegiance is to The Constitution of the United States; my first duty is to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic; and my vow of obedience to the President of the United States expired in 1993.
Therefore, I stand today opposed to my President, and the anti-American, un-Constitutional, unpatriotic Administration for which he serves as figurehead. I will do my part to voice my opposition, educate the populace, diligently support my political causes, and work with others to restore American freedoms to their former glory.
As a soldier, I made a promise. As a veteran, I will carry that promise with me to the end of my days."
It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?
Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives.
A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president- one man- too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.
The President, under guise of war, haqs more leeway in matters related to the war. If he, or those under his control, are listening to your phone calls
after determining you are not a threat, then you have a case. If you're talking to Muhammed, known terrorist master lock picker & escape artist extraordinairre, about muslim prisoners, he has a right to follow your conversation.
If the administration has your tax records, based upon your liklihood to vote a certain way, you have a case.[/QUOTE]
to me. 
to me.