DC Tom Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Not me. Are you saying people were outraged over the outing of Plame? I don't remember that at all. I remember it was very quiet at the time. People were outraged only after the media said "Why aren't you outraged over this? What the hell is wrong with you? Go forth and be outraged!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Obama wants to force detainees to have lunch with Ms. California. Homos everywhere are outraged. So is Hedd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 Obama wants to force detainees to have lunch with Ms. California. Homos everywhere are outraged. So is Hedd. Great post-Obama Prime Time Press Conference V3.2 from Dennis Miller the other night: to paraphrase, "What does it say when Ms. California has to field tougher questions than the President of the United States?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Not if they're non-binding, which the Convention on Torture is. If, on the other hand, the treaty is binding, then yes it would be...but then, there's legal ways around that too, like saying "The Geneva Convention doesn't grant these people status as POWs, so we're not bound by that either." Again, not right. Not illegal, either. At least not necessarily...I could make the argument that, since the Constitution requires that Congress approve treaties, then such treaties become binding on the executive as a matter of US law even if the treaty itself is non-binding as an international matter. I think it's a bad argument (separation of powers issue - it arguably allows Congress the authority to specify to the executive branch how laws are enforced, which is theoretically a power strictly invested in the executive), and I don't think it would fly in many courts in the country (save the Ninth Circus), but I could make the argument. Explain this... Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that Common Article 3 doesn't cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes. I am really just asking if this is true, not arguing one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 The only relevant fact is that two psychologists were contracted by the CIA to design a ten-step interrogation program, the last step of which was waterboarding. Everything else in that article was slant. They are claimed to have been by ABC. Do you expect CIA is step up and say "yes, they designed it" or "no, they worked on a different program, the real psychologists involved are these other two guys" And therein lies the problem with such outings - the record can never be set straight. A reporter hears something from somebody only six-degrees involved and who probably has it all wrong; the reporter jazzes it up and publishes it; and those prepared to believe the worst lap it up and never hear otherwise. They are estatic to believe that this tightly-held program was designed by two clowns who BS'd their way in with fake credentials. Apparently Kelly el al who find the article plausible would have us believe that an institution such as the CIA - in the business of recruiting agents from different cultures - does not have it's own cadre of psychologists. Funny, they've been advertising for those positions at job fairs since the late 80's. They would have us believe that the institution is so ignorant of the discipline that they would randomly hire these two guys, thinking they were psychologists, for such a sensitive and fragile operation. And they would have us believe that the psychologists designing the program would be the same people overseeing it, if not the actual ones dunking the prisoners. Uh-huh. Lap it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 They are claimed to have been by ABC. Do you expect CIA is step up and say "yes, they designed it" or "no, they worked on a different program, the real psychologists involved are these other two guys" And therein lies the problem with such outings - the record can never be set straight. A reporter hears something from somebody only six-degrees involved and who probably has it all wrong; the reporter jazzes it up and publishes it; and those prepared to believe the worst lap it up and never hear otherwise. They are estatic to believe that this tightly-held program was designed by two clowns who BS'd their way in with fake credentials. Apparently Kelly el al who find the article plausible would have us believe that an institution such as the CIA - in the business of recruiting agents from different cultures - does not have it's own cadre of psychologists. Funny, they've been advertising for those positions at job fairs since the late 80's. They would have us believe that the institution is so ignorant of the discipline that they would randomly hire these two guys, thinking they were psychologists, for such a sensitive and fragile operation. And they would have us believe that the psychologists designing the program would be the same people overseeing it, if not the actual ones dunking the prisoners. Uh-huh. Lap it up. Well, precisely none of that is what I think, but carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts