Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 11:18 AM

I appreciate your honesty. I have a few more:
17) When Bush said, "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons" and "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." in March of 2003, considering that no WMDs were found in Iraq, there had to have been at least some doubt. Certainty cannot be wrong.

18) In January of 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was quoted explaining how "the Authorization for Use of Military Force...[firstly] expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States." Later information released explained that this interpretation suggests that the President can bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 when he wiretaps American citizens without a warrant. Is this interpretation correct?

19) Both the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions specifically disallow torture to those states who have signed (which includes the US). In the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is defined in Article 1 as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Article 2 states the following: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture." This would make any torture carried out by a signatory a breach of the convention. The US ratified the convention in 1984. The US government is in breach of our agreement that was made law when we ratified the convention.

06-14-2007, 11:18 AM	#61 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I appreciate your honesty. I have a few more: 17) When Bush said, "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons" and "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." in March of 2003, considering that no WMDs were found in Iraq, there had to have been at least some doubt. Certainty cannot be wrong. 18) In January of 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was quoted explaining how "the Authorization for Use of Military Force...[firstly] expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States." Later information released explained that this interpretation suggests that the President can bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 when he wiretaps American citizens without a warrant. Is this interpretation correct? 19) Both the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions specifically disallow torture to those states who have signed (which includes the US). In the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is defined in Article 1 as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Article 2 states the following: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture." This would make any torture carried out by a signatory a breach of the convention. The US ratified the convention in 1984. The US government is in breach of our agreement that was made law when we ratified the convention.