[minimin]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Is torture not okay? Exactly what do you define as torture? Waterboarding? Being kept awake for days? Being forced to listen to Britney Spears or Boy George for hours on end? All of these methods are used, and though they are unpleasant, none leave scars, or are life threatening. As a matter of fact, many US soldiers must endure these "tortures" in training, and other methods which are worse. Air Force survival instructors often have their fingernails pulled out in simulated torture, and this is just in training. It hurts, to be sure, but it doesn't kill or cripple.

No,(but other forms of torture used--slapping hitting on the stomach, but not to cause internal bleeding of course, also slamming heads and bodies into walls) its not just because its only PAINFUL, doesn’t mean it should be regarded of good or fun or any less lawless, or anyless unconstitutional. Its still a crime and and I believe breaks atleast four treaties if I am correct. Just because, we should prep for situations like this doesn’t make it anymore right. Shouldn’t we have some scruples. Just because it doesnt kill doesnt mean that its okay.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Saddam was not shy about torture. He didn't mind having someone stand on the edge of a tall building and threaten to push them off if they didn't talk, and he tended to push, whether he got the information or not. He also liked to use things like sulfuric acid, electrical shocks, and even a large wood chipper which he used to shred his victims with. The lucky ones were fed into the machine head-first. The unlucky ones went in feet-first.

Two wrongs don’t make it right(plus they werent torturing US in the first place). We invaded a country took down the leader and tortured people. How correct is that and why do we have to meddle in the affairs of another country regardless of how evil the dictator is. North Korea has a pretty mean dictator does that mean we invade for no reason other than wanting to??(make every nation just like ours, we cant make every nation a democracy because we want it to be that way) Now why Bush go to Iran instead where the real problem was?

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Obama couldn't prosecute, even if he wanted to. If he said he did, it was just political rhetoric. If Bush wrote down his intentions about interrogations, and said that they were okay, then they are. The war on terror was authorized by congress, giving the president the ability to make "findings", and these "findings" become law, which makes actions committed in their name legal. Congress can change or reverse these findings/laws later on, but the president would still be immune from prosecution, if you know anything about the article of ex post facto.

As said does that make Bush's actions okay or does that make him and Cheney a war criminal themselves. regardless of what an article says...that i will look at later. but still, Just because the president does it doesnt make it legal, does he have the right to kill under this article.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

If Obama had decided to prosecute, he would never have succeeded, and, on the slim chance he did, he would have opened the door against future prosecutions against himself if he were take similar actions himself (which may be likely), not to mention reducing the ability of future presidents to make quick decisions in a crisis without having to call a special session of congress.

How would prosecuting torture hinder the presidents actions to make quick decisions in a crisis, so long as he doesnt use torture.

Regardless of whats been done in the past torture isnt okay by any standards, or for anyone. Its my opinion and aint gonna change anytime soon. hmmm...depressing world we live in these days...