Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The Bush administration sought to clarify the issue of lawful enhanced interrogation and torture. Many have come to the conclusion that water boarding is and should legally be considered torture.
The Bush administration operated within the law. However, Obama, said the law was violated - but failed to act on what he and his Justice Department considered illegal. His failure to act, defacto, validates what Bush did.
What is worse the issue of defining what is and what is not torture has not been clearly defined under Obama. The "Fear-up" provision in the Army Field Manual is a bit vague, and allows for the use of exploiting fear, real or imagined. Perhaps, introducing the fear of drowning fits into that, what do you think?
{added} I should not have assumed that people who read this actually read the Army Field Manual. I did a Google search and came across an interesting article on the subject of torture and the Manual. It also quoted the "Fear-up" provision in the manual. Interested people may want to read the article and the Manual.
How the U.S. Army's Field Manual Codified Torture -- and Still Does | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet |
ace....you're still bobbing and weaving and avoiding the central question.
The issue is not what is perceived as legal or not...we've had that debate.
The issue raised in the OP is if Obama represents a Bush third term.
Based on specific policy actions...
Bush approved enhanced interrogation....Obama overturned that approval.
Bush approved the use of CIA black prisons...Obama overturned that approval.
Bush approved rendition to countries that torture their own citizens... Obama overturned that approval.
The Obama DoJ is developing policies to provide more rights to detainees than provided by Bush.
...the question is simple...Were their policies the same?