Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
....because in the end what matters is not whether you torture people, but whether you win or lose a war. and torture only exists as an extension of losing a war.
that's funny.
|
The issue goes beyond winning or losing.
In the case of Bush, it was declaring a war, unilaterally, then asking your legal authorities to interpret the Constitution and/or acts of Congress in a manner that will provide a legal cover for any subsequent actions.
Even under the broadest interpretation, an "authorization for the use of military force" (granted by Congress) is not a declaration of war (as interpreted by Bush).
-----Added 6/1/2009 at 06 : 58 : 35-----
In 2004, the CIA Inspector General issued a report that “that some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.”
The Bush administration response....investigate the IG for not being "impartial"
Quote:
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.
Watchdog of C.I.A. Is Subject of C.I.A. Inquiry
|
Being a watchdog or whistle blower over the last eight years and putting the law above the politics of the "war on terror" was not a good career move...but there were some heroic bureaucrats.