6/9 Bush Administration memos:
"What can we get away with that might not technically be torture?"
"Who can we define as not protected against torture?"
"Can we argue the president has the authority to authorize torture?"
Bush Administration testimony:
"We never authorized torture."
\_ Doesn't it make sense that someone might want to know where the
line is and what does and does not constitute torture and against
who? You'd be happier if no one asked and they just went ahead with
no central policy for this stuff? Then you'd bitch that no one
thought about it or set a policy and how evil the admin is for not
even considering setting any guidelines.
\_ I think he says interesting things. I don't always agree,
but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
on the motd, so I post them.
\_ If they didn't intend to commit torture, or something close to
it, why would they have reasearched legal justification of
torture? Idle academic curiosity?
\_ Perhaps they wanted to get as close as possible but not over
the line?
\_ If that's the case, shouldn't the party line be:
"We never authorized this much torture."
\_ The New Improved Republican Party with 20% less torture!
\_ I guess the only reason you want to read about copyright
law is if you want to steal software/movies/music right?
\_ No, I'd be happier if the Administration would grow up and pass
on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see Biden
on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see BinLaden
rip Ashcroft's head off in the US Capitol Rotunda Thunderdome.
Barring that, I'd settle for Ashcroft in jail for contempt.
\_ Man, bringing the "bust a deal, spin the wheel" credo
to Washington would kick ass.
\_ Lies. Response deleted |
http://csua.com/feed/