On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:18:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

If the Congressmen had disapproved, don't you think you'd have heard their disapprovals ringing in
the hallowed halls of the Senate a long time ago?

I *am* glad to see that you will at least admit that some in Congress were involved.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:50:55 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture.

Are you suggesting that we should keep any foreign suspects we capture and put them in a
bed-and-breakfast for the rest of their lives?

If we can't return them to their country of birth, where should we send them?

What countries do *not* use coercive interrogation techniques?


That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.

If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

"thunder" wrote in message

.... As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion.

Richard Nixon was conducting wiretap operations solely for the strengthening
of his political position. Surely you see the difference.

....Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress.

Presidents are almost always at odds with the will of Congress. The
important question is whether the Prsident's actions are at odds with the
words of existing statutes.

As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

I think you need a bit more specificity than your interpretation of "...a
Constitutional crisis..." in order to bring an impeachment proceeding
forward. Also note that the word 'misdemeanor' is written in the US
Constitution with a lower case m. The reference of the time was not to any
class of offence, as might be interpreted today, but to unseemly, generally
bad behavior that might serve to put the USA in a position of ridicule or
humiliation. Twas the misdemeanor that got so many implacably on the trail
of Pres Clinton. The almost ceaseless lying and arrogance was the hook they
hung their coat on.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:43:57 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read referred to the same
individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just umpteen stories about this one
guy?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell torture?
Just what is torture?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

Eisboch