Not going to prosecute those who tortured?!?

Obama announced the other day that he has released the memo’s regarding the torture that took place in our prisons. We all know the song and dance, I don’t think I need to delve too far in to that.

He announced that

“In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,”

um…so we are going to use Nixons excuse? I’m the president..therefore it is not illegal? If a lawyer tells me I can run a red light, and I do so…could I now use this as an excuse to not be prosecuted for running this stop light? I think not. This is a horrible precedent to be set. The people torturing knew what they were doing was wrong. It is absolutely against the law, and here is the law:

LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE UNDER 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A

This opinion interprets the federal criminal prohibition against torture codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. It supersedes in its entirety the August 1, 2002 opinion of this Office entitled Standards of Conduct under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A.

That statute prohibits conduct “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” This opinion concludes that “severe” pain under the statute is not limited to “excruciating or agonizing” pain or pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death.”

The statute also prohibits certain conduct specifically intended to cause “severe physical suffering” distinct from “severe physical pain.”

Now if you wish to read the actual law on this. Here is the link:Law against torture This comes straight from the dept. of justice website so it is accurate and it is valid, the law in that link I provided goes in to great detail on what constitutes torture.

All the facts out of the way. We can not allow anyone to get in the way of justice. Every single person involved in the horrendous acts committed during the Bush Administration or ANY administration for that matter should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As the courts always say…ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. The only way that we can keep people from doing this in the future is to prosecute those that took part in it, either directly or indirectly. If they knew about it and did nothing they should be prosecuted as an accomplice to a crime. This is the way it works. No if’s, and’s or but’s about it.

Also, in addition to all of those prosecutions taking place, we then need to prosecute Barack Obama for Obstruction of Justice for trying to keep the course of law from taking place. I am dead serious about that. I appreciate what he is trying to do, but there is no high road to take when it comes to these horrendous acts perpetrated by this country.

These things can not be taken lightly. This country is better than this and we should act as though we are. We would no more like our men in uniform to have to go through these types of “interrogation techniques”, than the family members of those that we tortured and even killed. There have been a few cases in which prisoners were actually tortured to death at our prisons. This is not ok, and I firmly believe at this point that Barack Obama is committing a crime right along with everyone else and should be investigated and put to trial for this complete obliteration of this nations laws and moral standing.

This is something that should outrage anyone. If not…ask yourselves these questions. Would you like it if your children were hanged upside down until their legs turned black from lack of blood? Would you like it if your children were forced in to a box of scorpions and biting ants, and you had to be nearby and hear them screaming in agony? It happened..read the memo. you can find the pdf files on this page {Torture Memos}. Would you like your children to be drowned? That is what waterboarding is, only it is stopped before death occurs and then they do it again.

If you answered yes to these questions, then you should call for the investigation and prosecution of all individuals involved, especially those that gave the orders, which include George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, just to name the most known names.

If you are as outraged as me by this, then please…send a letter and call all representatives. If you don’t know who it is GO HERE

I have laid this out as factually based as I possibly can. I have done all the research for you..it is what I enjoy doing, so please don’t let my work be in vain. Contact ALL of them..not just your own. Tell them how pissed you are..let them know. If you don’t say anything..they’ll never know..

Until next time, Okie.

Published in:  on April 21, 2009 at 3:43 pm Comments (8)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://mydemocraticsocialistsociety.com/2009/04/21/not-going-to-prosecute-those-who-tortured/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Comments Leave a comment.

  1. On April 23, 2009 at 5:58 am Mattb4rd Said:

    How quickly forgotten is that congress, every yellow one of them, were briefed 10-20 times about the interrogation techniques and on water-boarding especially Nancy Pelosi was quoted as asking “that’s it?”

    Car batteries and clamps to the testes is torture and even that is a hell of a lot better than the atrocities they and their kind committed against our citizens. It’s NOTHING compared to beheading someone live on the internet and NOTHING compared to flying jets into the World Trade Center, killing THOUSANDS.

    Reply
    • On April 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm okieflavor4u Said:

      Every single person that knew the torture was happening and did nothing should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. ALL of them. This is not a partisan issue, I even firmly believe that Barack should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

      It is an international crime to torture. It is a crime in the U.S. to torture, therefore any torture, regardless of where, and regardless of whom, should be prosecuted. Just because someone does something to us, does not give us a right to degrade our own moral standing and do it back.

      The person “accused” of masterminding the 911 attacks, still has not been brought to justice…should he be tortured? NO. He should be brought up on charges, given a fair trial, and a jury should convict him. Plain and simple. Anything other than that is Anarchy. We have a civil way of punishing criminals(we used to at least), and that is how all crimes should be punished, through the court of law.

      Comparing car battery clamps to a beheading is not a good comparison. How about using someones child as a form of torture. Placing a mans children in a confined space with scorpions and ants that bite and forcing him to listen to his children scream in agony is NOT OK. Like I said before…if you think this is ok, then you are not ok. We do not need sadistic people like you running around in this country. You seemed like a level-headed person as I’m sure you are, but this is not something that can be looked past, sir. It is WRONG. no matter what the circumstances are. We are a nation with humanities and we should treat all people humanely, irregardless of how inhumane they were.

      You torture people from another country…the people from that country will like you less just because of the tactics used, and are more likely to strike back at you for that. Take the pirates for example. They took their hostages and treated them as if they were guests…up until our captain decided to jump in the boat with them, then they were stuck between a rock and a hard place and didn’t have a chance to treat him any kind of way. The pirates are more humane than you are.

      Reply
  2. On April 23, 2009 at 9:54 am kraftykristy Said:

    I agree with you Okie this is not right and rolling over isn’t the answer.

    Reply
    • On April 23, 2009 at 4:44 pm okieflavor4u Said:

      Thank you. At least there is someone with a brain and morals.

      Reply
  3. On April 23, 2009 at 6:30 pm Frankie Boy Said:

    Sure as hell ain’t you or the contributors (except me) of this blog.

    You are so enemy-friendly it scares the hell out of us NORMAL people.

    Reply
    • On April 24, 2009 at 12:25 am okieflavor4u Said:

      I’m not enemy friendly. I’m a humane person. And there are no contributors for this site.

      Here’s what your torture got us. Remember the pen guns? Remember all the malls that they said someone was going to bomb…yeah that came out of a guys mouth that was being tortured and just started spewing lies out of his mouth to get us to stop torturing him. Those interrogation tactics have been proven useless time and time again. This was proven to be true when the Supreme Court, in 1968, ruled 5-4 saying that any person confessing after a 6 hour period before having been in front of a judge would make that confession void. If you do not believe me. Here is their RULING.

      In case you’re wanting to avoid facts by NOT clicking on the link. I took the liberty of posting this ruling:

      § 3501. Admissibility of confessions
      How Current is This?
      (a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be admitted in evidence and the trial judge shall permit the jury to hear relevant evidence on the issue of voluntariness and shall instruct the jury to give such weight to the confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the circumstances.
      (b) The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including
      (1) the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment,
      (2) whether such defendant knew the nature of the offense with which he was charged or of which he was suspected at the time of making the confession,
      (3) whether or not such defendant was advised or knew that he was not required to make any statement and that any such statement could be used against him,
      (4) whether or not such defendant had been advised prior to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and
      (5) whether or not such defendant was without the assistance of counsel when questioned and when giving such confession.
      The presence or absence of any of the above-mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.
      (c) In any criminal prosecution by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate judge or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if the weight to be given the confession is left to the jury and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention: Provided, That the time limitation contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person before such magistrate judge or other officer beyond such six-hour period is found by the trial judge to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate judge or other officer.
      (d) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention.
      (e) As used in this section, the term “confession” means any confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.

      Reply
  4. On April 24, 2009 at 9:56 am sole4sail Said:

    So, you’re mad at Obama. Makes a lot of sense. He has to come in and clean the mess from the last guy, but all you care about is blasting him.
    The problem is, memos were flying back and forth, Bush&Co. were telling interrogators what to do, the interrogators were saying, “Are you kidding me?” back and forth. Thousands of back and forths. How can you possibly be mad at Obama for having to sift through all this stuff, where laws were being invented, re-written, bent and broken; and not take a step back?
    It’s going to take years for this to be settled. Do you really want a haphazard rush job find it’s way to the Supreme Court and have whatever convictions might occur get dismissed?
    I don’t.

    Reply
    • On April 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm okieflavor4u Said:

      I’m pissed at Obama for not letting justice take it’s course. Plain and simple.

      Reply

Leave a Comment