We Do Not Torture

Yep. It shows Bush showing the tiniest sign of a backbone while the Senators follow their usual routine of running to the safe side.
 
flavio said:
Where is covered in the UCMJ?
Click to expand...

Article 93...

flavio said:
Certainly would seem so given the supporters. Definitely doesn't point to any reasons to be strongly against it does it?
Click to expand...

Once again...if the offense is already covered, why create a new level of beauracracy? You think those men are championing the elimination of torture, which is already covered mind you, while I think they are doing two things...

1. Getting their names in the press, yet again, before the election year.
2. Trying to create government jobs that are niether wanted nor needed.
 
Here's the entire text of article 93.........

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you have now thoroughly convinced me that the new bill was needed.
 
What, do you want some 19 page drawn out legalese crap that any dime store lawyer can find loopholes in?

This says, if you mistreat you get punished. Seems cut & dry.
 
Gonz said:
What, do you want some 19 page drawn out legalese crap that any dime store lawyer can find loopholes in?

This says, if you mistreat you get punished. Seems cut & dry.
Click to expand...

Don't try to argue with him. He's wrong, and he knows it, so now he's going into damage control mode. Wait til he sees this post. I'm sure he'll rise to this bait...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Don't try to argue with him. He's wrong, and he knows it, so now he's going into damage control mode. Wait til he sees this post. I'm sure he'll rise to this bait...
Click to expand...
Fact is you now have no basis for arguing against this bill. "person subject to his orders" sounds like it's talking more about subordinates than prisoners. Even if it expressly said "prisoners" one sentence hardly covers the matter. There's no reason to believe this covers CIA. Basically your arguement that we should be against the bill because it's already covered is moot.

No damage control here. You don't have a leg to stand on.
 
flavio said:
Fact is you now have no basis for arguing against this bill. "person subject to his orders" sounds like it's talking more about subordinates than prisoners. Even if it expressly said "prisoners" one sentence hardly covers the matter. There's no reason to believe this covers CIA. Basically your arguement that we should be against the bill because it's already covered is moot.

No damage control here. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
:rofl4:

Okay, flavio...put down the crack pipe, and move away...that's right...just keep your hands where I can see them... :rofl4:
 
flavio said:
You've made it obvious you have nothing more of relevance to say on the matter.

:lol2:
Click to expand...

And you ran out of steam the second you said a new law was required even though there are laws (plural) already covering torture. BTW...you never did follow through on my 'dare' about finding one thing on your list that was not punishable, or punished...
 
Gato_Solo said:
And you ran out of steam the second you said a new law was required even though there are laws (plural) already covering torture. BTW...you never did follow through on my 'dare' about finding one thing on your list that was not punishable, or punished...
Click to expand...
You've made it obvious that the new bill is necessary. One sentence hardly covers things. *ENOUGH* PERSONAL ATTACKS....WARNING!!!* Gonz....Follow through on that.
 
Gonz said:
Nothing covers the CIA. That's why they're the CIA.
Click to expand...
From above....

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top