Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Bush Administration Conducted "Experiments" On Detainees

124

Posts

  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I can live with it, because I know the numbers involved are going to be really low. There's only a small number of people who we have any real interest in interrogating, let alone using enhanced techniques on.
    Ok. Then we'll go with a sample of one to start with -- your mom.

    Is it still ok?

    Edit: and don't come back with "but she hasn't done anything"

    Because I'll just say, "how do we know?"

    Well, if my mom met the following criteria:

    1) An illegal combatant captured overseas who is not an American citizen.
    2) The detainee is known to be highly-placed or in a leadership role in a terrorist/militant group.
    3) The appropriate intelligence agency believes that the detainee can offer significant, actionable intelligence that would be useful in ongoing operations or to hurt the group or network of which he is a part.

    I'd be in favor if waterboarding her. She doesn't meet any of these three requirements. Unless she has a secret life no one knows about.

    But, I doubt there are many 60 year-old grandmothers from Florida on any terrorist list.

    That . . . that is a bold argumentative gambit sir and I won't contest the point with you. But I would like to address the point of identification of illegal combatants a bit more thoroughly. I'm hesitant to just take the military or the clandestine services at their word seeing as how they are forced to withhold information from the public for national security/classified reasons.

    Would you be opposed to, say, a commitee being formed to ascertain the question of who is or is not an illegal combatant, one subject to civilian oversight and in fact has civilian representatives sitting on the commitee? I would find that much more easy to swallow rather than, "Do you know he's guilty?" "Yes" "How?" "That's classified". I would just like a little more control over who we torture, and I don't thinks that's too much to ask.

    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already.
    So, you'd torture a non-american terrorist with the ticking bomb but not an american terrorist with the ticking bomb? Why? What makes the american so special?

    Well, torturing an American would just be wrong. Serves everyone else right not being born into America!

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already.

    If the Constitution did not prohibit torture on citizens, would you be in favor of torturing gang members?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Phyphor wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Those aforementioned gang members live in the US and are protected by the Constitution. I went over this already.
    So, you'd torture a non-american terrorist with the ticking bomb but not an american terrorist with the ticking bomb? Why? What makes the american so special?

    Well, torturing an American would just be wrong. Serves everyone else right not being born into America!

    Ah man...

  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    The US certainly does not give a flying fuck about any convention.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    The United Nations, and any treaties/conventions the US has signed don't constrain the US's actions obviously.

    For MM, I think we are trying to get him to objectively state, and thereby understand what he claims to believe. I'm curious how well he understands his own views on morality and justice.

    To me that's more interesting than the news in the OP. We already knew doctors were present at the interrogations. Now we know they took notes. Gasp!

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    You know, I'm curious as to whether MM feels that other countries torturing Americans is also ok.

  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    The US certainly does not give a flying fuck about any convention.

    Under Bush we didn't, we have an opportunity to give a fuck now. Hopefully enough of Congress finds the nuts to do it, I seriously doubt the U.N. will have the nuts to.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So I have the constitution here.

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


    Is there a different version that I'm not aware of that adds anywhere "To citizens"? Because Article VI also says
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Is there something in there that I'm missing that says that we only have to obey the supreme Law of the Land when dealing with civilians? We cannot inflict cruel or unusual punishments, and we are bound by that. Where did the retarded notion that if someone isn't a US citizen we can do whatever the fuck we want to them? We're still bound by our laws.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    it sure was effective at finding witches!

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    it sure was effective at finding witches!

    There were zero effective attacks from Witches while the administration was conducting Enhanced Water Activities to find Witches.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective
    Yeah, cause they sure caught a shit load of them there witches.

    Edit: similar minds think alike.

    World's best janitor
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Khavall wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    it sure was effective at finding witches!

    There were zero effective attacks from Witches while the administration was conducting Enhanced Water Activities to find Witches.

    If someone survives being waterboarded, does that mean that they're a terrorist and a witch?

  • DibsDibs Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    it sure was effective at finding witches!

    There were zero effective attacks from Witches while the administration was conducting Enhanced Water Activities to find Witches.

    If someone survives being waterboarded, does that mean that they're a terrorist and a witch?

    Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.

    Except the part in the OP which sites specific experiments the scientists did on the detainees, particularly the salin solution, and that's what we know about.

    Standing by with clipboards was a part of it, they were active in it as well

    Spoiler:
  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Khavall wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Witch dunkings, the rack, rat helmets - centuries of use show torture must be at least halfway effective but we're still not supposed to try it. If I knew a secret and someone pressed a pistol loaded with blanks against my head, I'd be singing like a canary.

    it sure was effective at finding witches!

    There were zero effective attacks from Witches while the administration was conducting Enhanced Water Activities to find Witches.

    Oh come on, there is no evidence to support that dunking effectively curtailed witch-related curses, spells, and thorny dooms!

    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    The US certainly does not give a flying fuck about any convention.

    "Genevacon? Nah, I go to Comiccon and Dragoncon."

    camo_sig2.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Not sure why we're arguing over whether torturing non Americans is cool or not. Did the Geneva Conventions get dissolved when I wasn't paying attention? Or are we ignoring them in order to see how morally reprehensible MM is? Because I think we already know that he is a douche, hypothetically.

    The US certainly does not give a flying fuck about any convention.

    We do too! When other people violate them.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.
    Well what in the world would you call it?

    You could call it a medical experiment if you wanted. It would still be an experiment though.

  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    You know, I'm curious as to whether MM feels that other countries torturing Americans is also ok.

    "It's the duty of other countries to keep us from torturing their citizens."

    Pony_Sig.png
  • psycojesterpsycojester Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Morally reprehensible bullshit

    The best thing about this thread is getting to watch a human being fail the turing test.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Morally reprehensible bullshit

    The best thing about this thread is getting to watch a human being fail the turing test.

    Less like failing a Turing Test, more like failing a Voight-Kampff Test.

    camo_sig2.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.
    Well what in the world would you call it?

    You could call it a medical experiment if you wanted. It would still be an experiment though.

    As the limed quote says, call it research.

    This was not an experiment, but that doesn't at all stop it from being absolutely fucking awful.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.
    Well what in the world would you call it?

    You could call it a medical experiment if you wanted. It would still be an experiment though.

    As the limed quote says, call it research.

    This was not an experiment, but that doesn't at all stop it from being absolutely fucking awful.

    except...there were experiments.

    Spoiler:
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Okay, there has to be some for of human rights trial now. I know everyone in the current administration just wants to move on and get as far away from the Bush administration as humanly possible, but we need to answer for this. Someone has to go to prison for what was done here.

    It's just sad that I know none of those serving time will be Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.

    Fuck that.

    Can't we just have a Predator Drone "misfire" into Bush's ranch?

    No can do. Bush sold his ranch the day he left office. Now he lives in a lily white gated community in Dallas.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Dibs wrote: »
    After skimming through the white paper it doesn't seem like the doctors were driving any of the events, but rather observing and commenting on the torture that was already going on. The use of the word 'experiment' here is unjustified, but the term research certainly fits.

    It being torture is enough of a reason to be disgusted, but I think it's important not to skew the reality of the situation.

    I agree with this statement.

    It's not so much 'the doctors weren't ok, therefore it's not experimentation!', but moreso the fact that from reading the article it seems to be more about doing the torture and then observing/taking notes/comparing. I am not questioning the morality of torture, only to say that I think this is a case of sensationalist journalism. These people were being tortured and apparently sometimes tortured with new techniques, all while under the watchful eye of doctors/psychologists that could assess the results in a scientific manner. I don't know.. it's a big deal, but this screamed 'sensationalist' at me - throw out the word 'experimentation' and people start making Nazi comparisons.
    Well what in the world would you call it?

    You could call it a medical experiment if you wanted. It would still be an experiment though.

    As the limed quote says, call it research.

    This was not an experiment, but that doesn't at all stop it from being absolutely fucking awful.

    except...there were experiments.

    can you show me specifically what? experimenting on people means something specific. what you'd put in your OP talks about use of experimental procedures, but doesn't seem to reffer to any real scientifically conducted experiements.



    That doesn't make the behavior any less reprehensible, I just believe it is important to call out your enemies using the proper terms, elsewise you give them a defense to use as a strawman when their actions themselves are still heinous

    georgersig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Zython wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Okay, there has to be some for of human rights trial now. I know everyone in the current administration just wants to move on and get as far away from the Bush administration as humanly possible, but we need to answer for this. Someone has to go to prison for what was done here.

    It's just sad that I know none of those serving time will be Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.

    Fuck that.

    Can't we just have a Predator Drone "misfire" into Bush's ranch?

    No can do. Bush sold his ranch the day he left office. Now he lives in a lily white gated community in Dallas.
    He will miss that ranch. He had it ever since he bought it in 1999. I don't think he sold the ranch.
    The Wall Street Journal quoted an unnamed White House official: "They'll have their place in Crawford. He just loves it."[20] The Journal noted that in 2007 Bush had not visited the ranch as much as in prior years noting that in 2004 he visited 17 times compared with four times prior to August 2007.

  • psychoticdreampsychoticdream Registered User
    edited June 2010
    face it, he'll never answer for this. ever.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    face it, he'll never answer for this. ever.

    Makes you hope there's an afterlife, you know?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    face it, he'll never answer for this. ever.

    Unfortunately, our political system is like our financial system. Golden Parachutes for everyone.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • frandelgearslipfrandelgearslip Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Okay, there has to be some for of human rights trial now. I know everyone in the current administration just wants to move on and get as far away from the Bush administration as humanly possible, but we need to answer for this. Someone has to go to prison for what was done here.

    Now I would hold a party/barbecue if Dick Cheney was ever strapped to an electric chair, but the sad fact is that prosecuting a president for their actions after they leave office is a very very bad idea.

    1. It will quickly devolve to the point where every president is tried as soon as an administration opposed to theirs attains office. Look at president Clinton's impeachment. It will be like that except with every president times 1000.

    2. Does anybody think that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished office if they thought that they were going to be tried when they left office. Somebody is going to seize office and not let go if we charge people when they leave office.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm a bit more concerned about the next Republican President torturing people again. That's going to happen. And it's going to be awesome!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm a bit more concerned about the next Republican President torturing people again. That's going to happen. And it's going to be awesome!

    what, you're not concerned about obama doing it? Anything he's said has just been political posturing. His actions speak far louder, and his actions say that he's willing to hold on to any gains in power the previous administration gave to his position.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    I'm a bit more concerned about the next Republican President torturing people again. That's going to happen. And it's going to be awesome!

    what, you're not concerned about obama doing it? Anything he's said has just been political posturing. His actions speak far louder, and his actions say that he's willing to hold on to any gains in power the previous administration gave to his position.

    Well, one's a surety. There's a question on the other.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Okay, there has to be some for of human rights trial now. I know everyone in the current administration just wants to move on and get as far away from the Bush administration as humanly possible, but we need to answer for this. Someone has to go to prison for what was done here.

    Now I would hold a party/barbecue if Dick Cheney was ever strapped to an electric chair, but the sad fact is that prosecuting a president for their actions after they leave office is a very very bad idea.

    1. It will quickly devolve to the point where every president is tried as soon as an administration opposed to theirs attains office. Look at president Clinton's impeachment. It will be like that except with every president times 1000.

    2. Does anybody think that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished office if they thought that they were going to be tried when they left office. Somebody is going to seize office and not let go if we charge people when they leave office.

    #1 is valid and one of the big issues here.

    #2 is fearmongering bullshit.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I contend that was half the point of the Clinton impeachment. The other half (well, it's more 90/10 with the ninety being this second bit upcoming) was delegitimizing Democratic rule.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • frandelgearslipfrandelgearslip Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Okay, there has to be some for of human rights trial now. I know everyone in the current administration just wants to move on and get as far away from the Bush administration as humanly possible, but we need to answer for this. Someone has to go to prison for what was done here.

    Now I would hold a party/barbecue if Dick Cheney was ever strapped to an electric chair, but the sad fact is that prosecuting a president for their actions after they leave office is a very very bad idea.

    1. It will quickly devolve to the point where every president is tried as soon as an administration opposed to theirs attains office. Look at president Clinton's impeachment. It will be like that except with every president times 1000.

    2. Does anybody think that Bush/Cheney would have relinquished office if they thought that they were going to be tried when they left office. Somebody is going to seize office and not let go if we charge people when they leave office.

    #1 is valid and one of the big issues here.

    #2 is fearmongering bullshit.

    #2 is not BS. Most Republicans support waterboarding. If one were to throw cheney/bush in jail, there is no way in hell the next Republican administration would relinquish power if all they have to look forward to is jail cells. Not that many people democrat or republican is going to go to jail willingly if they have options.

    Look at the history of the roman and greek democracies a lot of time when people seized power they did it to protect themselves, since as soon as they left power their opponents would pretty much gang rape them.

    edit: Also look at a lot of failed democracies. A lot of times the two biggest sides are so antipathic towards one another that group A can never let go of power, because group B will at the very least imprison them if not kill them outright if they gain power.

Sign In or Register to comment.