The Black Vault

..and for the lier that won't quit lying when your mom has a nuke strapped to her waste? I'm sure everybody will truly respect you when you offer that liar tea and biscuits when you don't get your way...and he sticks his tongue at you w/ a biscuit crumb drooling off of it. Pass the biscuits please...this is justice. Celebrate.

Screamzero
These guys have been tortured for years now, most broke within a few minutes to a few days the rest in couple months. What lies are left when the guilty end up in a supermax?

As for my mom, you underestimate this family's dedication to peace. We die for others, we don't kill for others we won't add that sin to our souls.

Good God most here with a few exceptions are so obvious it's ridiculous. Keep loading the wagon folks, it's fun to watch.

Cheney should close his hole, yeah John he did his stint and it's done now, so enough already. Surely you know exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. He's trying to justify FAILED POLICY~~~you're falling for it hook line and sinker.

Why are they looking into the Bush lawyers and legal team/ Ashcroft is shaking in his boots, they twisted the law to fit the policy. Tack those docs up when you get them.

You know these clowns will take it so far and then they'll bury it like usual. They'll make it look good on the surface, all for public consumption, deep down they'll never investigate themselves for keeps, yet one can hope.

Cheney should just close his trap and move on yet something tells me that those you put him in his current position have done so for a reason. Stay tuned!

Cole

they twisted the law to fit the policy.

And Polosi knew about the law and the policy, now whats to deny it. Is it a matter of twisting the law, or is it a matter of inturpitation?

For that reason Cheney and Bush should defend these decisions, since the Democrats are looking for a good branch to hang them from, and trail by public opinion. Lynch mob mentality, and the liberal Democrats seem to be ruthless as long as its a Republican!

This is why a California Issue has gone to its Supreme court today, to decide the letter of the law, over the will of the voters and the Constitutional rights that conflict. 51% of the state voted for something according to our laws, to ammend the Constitution, but may be overturned. Does that make them lawbreakers and evil, or criminals? The law is very complex, and the inturpitation never black or white, it always envolves something inbetween. Everyday, we see new inturpitations of laws and rights that I'm sure were never intended, like the right to demostrate turning into it being Okay to puke in public places for someone else to mop up. Lawyers are experts at inturpeting laws, not us, and maybe the letter of the law and definition are not the war crimes you all think. Maybe by definition no law was broken. Maybe the inturpitation has more than one extreme, and neither are wrong. Doctors make mistakes everyday that loose lives, but is that a criminal act or negligent act in our laws?

From someone who was there, no speculation, no theories, no agendas, just facts!

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A former State Department lawyer responsible for Guantanamo-related cases said Friday that the Bush administration overreacted after 9/11 and set up a system in which torture occurred.

Vijay Padmanabhan is at least the second former Bush administration official to publicly label “enhanced interrogation techniques” as torture. He said the administration was wrong in its entire approach when it sent detainees to the remote Navy base and declared it out of reach of any court.

“I think Guantanamo was one of the worst overreactions of the Bush administration,” Padmanabhan told The Associated Press. He said other overreactions included extraordinary renditions, waterboarding that occurred at secret CIA prisons and “other enhanced interrogation techniques that would constitute torture.”

Maybe he's an axe to grind, who knows, but he was on the payroll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29917234

Cole

PS.

Bush and crony try to terrorize Gitmo attorneys

By Jerry Tallmer

Charles D. Stimson, the Bush administration’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, would seem to have been reading his Shakespeare. Last week this Orwellian anonymity emulated Dick the Butcher, who in Act IV, Scene 2, of “Henry VI, Part 2,” bellows to his fellow rogues: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!”

Mr. Stimson last Thursday expressed his distress at the legal aid being offered pro bono to the hundreds of “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay by attorneys from leading law firms around the country, and proposed — urged — a big-business boycott of any and all such law firms.

His chosen method of execution of the offending lawyers is, well, starvation. Selective starvation.

“I think, quite honestly,” Mr. Stimson said in an interview in Washington over Federal News Radio, as reported Saturday in The New York Times, “when corporate C.E.O.’s see that these firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists and representing reputable firms…. And we want to watch that play out.”

Just too damn funny!

The Bush administration has for five years been dodging around that last proviso — “criminal prosecutions” — but if the Guantanamo (and other) detainees aren’t criminal, what are they?

Mr. Ratner pointed out that the day Mr. Stimson made his remarks over Federal News Radio — echoed next day on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal — was precisely the fifth anniversary of Jan. 11, 2002, on which marches and protests against the Kafka-esque U.S. incarceration of nameless, faceless, lawyerless detainees took place around the world.

“The U.S. Supreme Court,” said Ratner, “has now twice ruled that the detainees have the rights to habeas corpus and to counsel” — once in Ragul v. Bush, June 2004, in a case brought by his own Center, and once in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, June 2006, in a case to which the Center filed a brief amicus curiae.

Mr. Stimson may be waiting and watching for this heavyhanded drama “to play out.” But the attorneys of this nation aren’t waiting. As of early Monday, more than 60 deans of distinguished law schools — “with more joining by the hour” — had put their names and their reputations on a statement of deep concern.

“We, the…undersigned,” they declared, “…are appalled by the January 11, 2007, statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles “Cully” Stimson…encouraging corporate executives to force their law firms to choose between their pro bono and paying clients.…

“We teach our students that lawyers have a professional obligation to ensure that even the most despised and unpopular individuals and groups receive zealous and effective legal representation.… In a free and democratic society, government officials should not encourage intimidation or retaliation against lawyers who are fulfilling their pro bono obligations.

You get the Picture I'm quite sure!

http://chelseanow.com/cn_17/talkingpoint.html

Chain-gangy...and Rummy were the puppet-masters who convinced "Oil-man" Bush to attack Iraq, for the stupid reason Bush's father couldn't march to Baghdad. Where's the oil?
Where's the "democratic" country of Iraq? It's still a theocracy, and still bombs soldiers off the map, daily. Haliburton has made a small fortune on armaments. Tricky Dicky is laughing all the way to the bank....

Question is, why isn't it Bush out there speaking after Obama?? (Could it be because he's totally inarticulate??) Dick is trying to keep from going to court on war crimes, by diverting the lens away from "it wasn't bad torture...it was useful...it gleaned tons of information...."
Really?? And where is Osama Ben Laden these days? Wait, he didn't hole up in Iraq....never mind.

The picture is the inturpetation is not clear cut, as to what is, and is not considered torture legally. I also do not see the US supreme Court ruling the President or any of his Cabinet have committed War Crimes, which is something you have inturpeted.

Bush is not speaking because the protocol of past Presidents is to not speak out against sitting Presidents. Jimmy Carter seems to think he should be exempt from that, but has used it to uplift his own legacy as "worst President" to second worst.

someone needs to pop out and give him a good scare like.....

"Bush is coming out and telling everyone all the crap you pulled while u were in office!!"

Its going to be a great day when one of them rolls on the other ones....and writes a tell all (tattle tale in Bush terms) book!!!

He is a hop skip and Bushism away from a heart attack.

greeney2 wrote:Bush is not speaking because the protocol of past Presidents is to not speak out against sitting Presidents. Jimmy Carter seems to think he should be exempt from that, but has used it to uplift his own legacy as "worst President" to second worst.

It’s just decent manners and it's what you do. You just do come out and say things do you.

You don’t speak out against the new guy. I have no idea if any ex-PM has ever done that. I think a few Mr. Speaker have though.