is this to little to late?Follow

I'm really touched that the President would go to all that effort to say, "Don't do those ghastly things!" *wink wink* "That sort of treatment is intolerable!" *nudge nudge*

Nexa

Having not read the executive order, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it actually provides more leeway to interrogators by declaring torture neither cruel nor unusual. I don't doubt for a second that the administration will provide its own definitions of "torture", and "cruel and unusual".

Of course being Bush, he could probably add a signing statement that says he doesn't actually have to obey the rules he just made.

Five years ago there was a very narrow definition of torture.

The 2002 Bybee Memo (the office of legal council) ended up defining torture with two necessary conditions. A person needed to inflict "severe pain" which had to be "specificly intended". The problem is that "severe pain" ends up defined as an action that could potentially result in organ failure or death. Also, "specific intent" was only present if the infliction of the severe pain was the sole, unaccompanied, end of the interrogator.

And then well.. the rest happened.

it is a pr sham.

it still allows "aggressive interogation techniques" like water boarding, sleep deprevation, sitting in a hot or cold cell for long periods of time amoung other things.

we dont need a sepreate "executive order", we just need to adhere to the policies we agreed to under the Geneva Convention. the white house is just trying to pass a law/order/bill that absolves them from what they have been allowing during this war.

while publicly it is called an "anti torture" bill for the masses of idiots in this country who wont look past the title, it is really an exception to the Geneva Convention that further defines exactly what is and is not "torture".

it gives us legal right to do the things we have been doing during this war. and it absolves those responsible for violating the Geneva Convention for those war crimes we have committed.

but just like the california wildfire bill that gave individual states the right to take private property and sell it to for profit companies, no one will listen or read the actual bill. and just like the california wildfire bill, 5 years from now when this addministraition is out of office and living fat, we will blame the supreme court for their interpetation of this act that allows us to torture instead of blaming the satan worshipers who wrote it.

1 year, 5 months and counting till we have a chance to startmoving forward again.

my only regret will be that no one but a hand full of grunts will be held responsible for the mess this country is in because of these idiots.

haven't read it either but did hear a bit about it on the radio, and do recall there being still much room for lieniency.
------------------------------------------------------------

exactly. it is very very vague. it can be interpeted that spacific acts taken against prisoners might not be illegal, or at the very least, not be prohibited. the only thing that is clearly prohibited is any degridation along the lines of sexual or religious. anything else is fair game as long as it doesnt cause grevious bodily harm.

the geneva convention strictly prohibits any questioning at all other than for identification purposes. period. we trashed that one big time.

it also prohibits any kind of coercion, or torture of any kind. this includes acts like water boarding, stripping them naked and sitting them in a sleep deprivation room with the tempature fluxuating from extremly hot to extremly cold. something that this order does not prohibit.

there is no question we violated the geneva convention. the only thing standing between this addministraition and a war crimes trial is the renaming of detainees from "prisoners of war" to "illegal enemy combatants". that is the only loop hole seperating this addministraition from a hot seat at the hague.

and recently, the supreme court tossed out the casses of detainees at guantanimo brought by the federal prosecutors becasue they were listed in court documents as "illegal combatants" adn left out the word "enemy".

oversight? nope. if they used the word "enemy", they would not be subject to federal prosecution at all. they would fall under "prisoners of war". but by leaving it out, they are not subject to a military inquisiton, but a real trial in a federal courtroom with real attouneys. and the supreme court has already rules that "enemy combatants" ARE ENTITLED to the same rights as"prisoners of war".

the white house is walking a tight rope. currently, they are damned of they do, and impeached adn tried for war crimes if they dont. they either have to allow them to have their day in court in a real courtroom with real attourneys, or run the risk of a federal court eliminating the distinction of "enemy combatant" and "prisoners of war", adn thus opening up this entire addministraition to the WAR CRIMES ACT. the very one we created to use against the vermin in bosnia.

they need a bill/law/order that will make what they did LEGAL. which in itself is acknoledgement that they KNOW what they did wasnt leagal.

that is what this is all about. if they really wanted to stop torture, they dont need a bill/order/law. all they have to do is abide by the geneva convention that WE CREATED and agreed to abide by along with many many other countries including some of our enemys.

we broke the law. someone besides a few grunts in uniform should be held accontable.