Posted on 04/25/2009 8:25:03 AM PDT by airedale
This is the wrong act since it was passed long after the incidents in question.
But the incidents in question occured long before 2005 that’s why the earlier laws were the ones the White House used in 2001-2004. Laws can’t be made retroactive in the US.
But it’s what we’re operating under now, as far as I can tell.
Not lecturing you and I appreciated your finding the code section in effect before 2005. You also keep bringing up the 2005 law which made substantial changes and it’s not applicable to my question. If the incidents in question occurred after 2005 then it would be which is my point.
You're wrong. Read the statute:
18 U.S.C. § 2340A. TortureNote that torture is defined in section 2340 as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law [...]"(a) Offense.-- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.-- There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if--
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.-- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
“As used in this chapter
(1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; “
Waterboarding those NOT covered by Geneva Conventions and NOT covered by the US Constitution (non citizens) was LAWFULLY SANCTIONED by the United States Government!
Any pain or suffering these animals felt was “incidental” to the task of GAINING INFORMATION WHICH SAVED AMERICAN LIVES!
Sandy, wimps like you will force Presidents, in the future, to issue Presidential Pardons to all all CIA and intelligence agents, on a regular basis.
We MUST do what we did.
Cowardice on this issue will likely mean that radical Islam will kill all of us, or in slave all of us, very soon.
You think we put cigarettes out on people's eyeballs? Because that's what your question was about, remember?
Waterboarding those NOT covered by Geneva Conventions and NOT covered by the US Constitution (non citizens) was LAWFULLY SANCTIONED by the United States Government!
So what? The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with the torture statute, which was written to enforce the torture treaty we signed only about twenty years ago. And btw, "under color of law" and "lawful" do not mean the same thing. You're begging the question.
If someone planted a nuclear device, ready for detonation, and was later captured, I do think that the President has the duty, right and ability to “sanction” whatever it takes to get information vital to protect life, thousands of lives. The pain is not the point, the pain is “incidental” to gaining vital information. The President, who can “sanction” the launch of a nuclear missile, which will kill millions, SURELY has the right and duty and ability to “sanction” a cigarette in an eyeball, to PREVENT the death of millions!
YES Geneva is important, primarily because the brain dead leftists bring it up constantly, and treaty obligations are FAR more important than any act of Congress.
The Geneva Conventions do NOT give POW protection to terrorists!
The statute that YOU rely upon also has very broad exceptions.
That would seem to make the Clinton administration guilty of torture, since Clinton handed terrorists over to foreign countries, had THEM do the dirty work, with REAL torture, and then Clinton benefited from the information that was obtained!
That is the very definition of “under color of law” lol.
reference
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.