Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
197. If I'm reading your sarcasm correctly,
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 05:35 PM
Dec 2014

you're cool with acts of torture committed with impunity.

LaternWaste hearts death by hypothermia.

k&r.... spanone Dec 2014 #1
thank you for your constant commitment to justice grasswire Dec 2014 #2
bound by common human decency Agony Dec 2014 #3
Well maybe he is using his Executive Discretion to not focus resources on those crimes. nt kelly1mm Dec 2014 #4
I've been saying this since what they were doing first hit the news. shraby Dec 2014 #5
You are right but are conflating two processes. Congress should have Impeached AND TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #17
It is so chilling to me to see the constant drumming for torture to be excused because of 9-11. Note grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #18
Smoke screen activated ad nauseam Mira Dec 2014 #56
K&R!!!! newfie11 Dec 2014 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Dec 2014 #7
Authoritarians by definition have to blindly follow their chosen leader. If that leader rhett o rick Dec 2014 #11
"apologists" for the Democratic President on Democratic Underground? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #15
The torture apologists. Those that claim he is not breaking the law by his failure to prosecute grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #19
who does that? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #20
The world is and has been prosectuing. Italy, Spain and now Germany. But no matter, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #23
Not so far they aren't VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #24
There are more fertile fields to cultivate. Scuba Dec 2014 #38
Link to Germany prosecuting? nt. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #138
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025992615 grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #140
Still waiting for a link that shows Germany is prosecuting. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #141
here grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #177
That is not what your link says. There's not a word about Germany "prosecuting" in that story. MADem Dec 2014 #191
Quote: grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #193
Bad News for you--the European Center is NOT "Germany." MADem Dec 2014 #239
Your question implies that you would rather the torturers NOT be prosecuted. Am I sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #270
At least we agree that torture should always be prosecuted, right? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #82
The world has been prosecuting them for years now. sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #269
Torture is evil, and is universally understood to be criminal. delrem Dec 2014 #92
Where are the prosecutions for torture, VanillaRhapsody? Scootaloo Dec 2014 #201
when I hear those same Duers screaming about so-called "hero worship" of cops Skittles Dec 2014 #45
Hang on... OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #59
There's a difference between a law and an authority. CJCRANE Dec 2014 #95
I think you're confusing "imply" and "infer" LanternWaste Dec 2014 #148
Beg to differ. truebluegreen Dec 2014 #251
The administration Old Codger Dec 2014 #8
The Constitution also requires the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #9
Yes, that is the law. But surely your suggestion is not that Obama is legally obligated to prosecute? tritsofme Dec 2014 #10
Link? OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #13
Link for what? tritsofme Dec 2014 #16
To your claim about Obama and the DoJ OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #34
Google might be your best shot. tritsofme Dec 2014 #36
You made the claim; now, prove it. OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #37
I am not the one making an extraordinary claim here. tritsofme Dec 2014 #40
Tell me where Obama and Holder can ignore an obligation OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #43
The President has prosecutorial discretion SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2014 #96
They can't Aerows Dec 2014 #266
No, educate yourself on "prosecutorial discretion". phleshdef Dec 2014 #46
I think you would do well Aerows Dec 2014 #206
The law allows the Attorney General prosecutorial discretion, as I pointed out in our other exchange phleshdef Dec 2014 #214
By being a signatory Aerows Dec 2014 #217
Prosecutorial discretion is not overridden by the Geneva Convention or any other law or treaty. phleshdef Dec 2014 #219
Yes it is overridden, explicitly, by the Geneva Conventions. eomer Dec 2014 #243
That does not mean prosecutorial discretion is overriden. phleshdef Dec 2014 #248
That's incorrect, the Geneva Conventions do, as I said, explicitly override and allow no discretion. eomer Dec 2014 #261
The Geneva Conventions don't have the power to override prosecutorial discretion. phleshdef Dec 2014 #262
And your basis for saying that is what? eomer Dec 2014 #265
Here you are. bornskeptic Dec 2014 #57
that's not proof. That's just a definition of prosecutorial discretion. FourScore Dec 2014 #71
Of course it doesn't. If it did grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #83
Treaties are international law not American law. Different beast altogether. n/t A Simple Game Dec 2014 #159
Signed treaties are US law. That's why they want to do the TPP as a treaty. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #194
They have to become US law first hack89 Dec 2014 #273
"Prosecutorial discretion" sounds like a bullshit excuse for corruption to me. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #106
It can be used as a "bullshit excuse", but its still a perfectly legal bullshit excuse. phleshdef Dec 2014 #215
Excuse for what? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #253
Choosing not to prosecute anyone in the prior administration. nt branford Dec 2014 #256
An excuse for torture. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #257
Complain to the American voters and Founding Fathers. branford Dec 2014 #258
Now you argue torture protects him. It does not. He may be held accountable grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #260
I don't know where you get your information or if you really read the content of other posts. branford Dec 2014 #275
How is pot legal in Washington and Colorado joeglow3 Dec 2014 #64
Say they can pick and choose, which I don't dispute JonLP24 Dec 2014 #223
He must "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. " That is grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #21
"He" who? OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #27
Since obama is the AG's boss, the onus falls to him. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #151
He can ask. OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #153
He is required to. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #179
The executive has broad prosecutorial discretion tritsofme Dec 2014 #29
Citation? Case law? Scuba Dec 2014 #39
Stop being lazy and use google. phleshdef Dec 2014 #47
The onus for proving a claim lies with the one making the claim. Here, these may help you. Scuba Dec 2014 #49
Common Knowledge does not have to be cited.... Cryptoad Dec 2014 #51
Show me some case law where a President's discretion was reviewed on a legally similar situation. Scuba Dec 2014 #52
I'd be surprised Aerows Jan 2015 #277
In that case, the onus is on you to support the claim that broad prosecutorial discretion... phleshdef Dec 2014 #114
As said elsewhere on this thread, prosecutorial discretion is a euphemism for cronyism. Scuba Dec 2014 #116
That may be so, in some cases, but its still describes the very real legal leeway the... phleshdef Dec 2014 #117
Yet no one on this thread has been able to support the idea by citing case law in a similar case. Scuba Dec 2014 #118
No. The Onus rests on President Obama Aerows Dec 2014 #174
Lets get one thing straight, I would not oppose charges for those who were responsible for torture. phleshdef Dec 2014 #175
The Geneva Convention Aerows Dec 2014 #186
This has nothing to do with shielding any President. phleshdef Dec 2014 #195
You do realize that the Attorney General Aerows Dec 2014 #204
You are completely wrong and you completely ignored the thorough debunking I provided you. phleshdef Dec 2014 #213
What statements did I make that are "completely wrong"? Aerows Dec 2014 #216
The part where you continue to ignore the existence of prosecutorial discretion. phleshdef Dec 2014 #220
The part that you don't like Aerows Dec 2014 #221
You haven't been paying attention. phleshdef Dec 2014 #222
"You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying" Aerows Dec 2014 #224
Wow, "a wall of text" = I can't bother to hear what you have to say. phleshdef Dec 2014 #226
tl;dr Aerows Dec 2014 #228
What? phleshdef Dec 2014 #229
Is this where I enquire whether or not you speak English? n/t Aerows Dec 2014 #230
Wait Bobbie Jo Dec 2014 #271
"Prosecutorial discretion" is a bullshit excuse for cronyism. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #107
Well said. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #142
+1 n/t BeanMusical Dec 2014 #161
It is. Aerows Dec 2014 #207
In fact, he could ask the AG to investigate torturing innocent people to death over breakfast! grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #264
Obama is the executive. The attorney general serves at Obama's discretion. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #62
Repeating the same thing over and over without any links to back up your claims FourScore Dec 2014 #73
Not when it comes to war crimes. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #85
This isi No, 7 in the international treaty cited above: JDPriestly Dec 2014 #61
+1 grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #254
Article 7 suggests that the U.S. government, no matter who KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #68
Thank you! grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #86
That is NOT what that says at all. MADem Dec 2014 #244
IANAL so please bear that in mind as you read my response. My layperson's KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #246
Kick n/t Oilwellian Dec 2014 #259
Did you bother to read the treaty? SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #187
They prosecute pot smokers. Which in your opinion, does more harm to sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #272
If he did I think it would backfire politically doc03 Dec 2014 #12
Doesn't matter. He's in violation of the law. Worse, he could be considered complicit in war crimes, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #22
+1! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #109
The 13th Amendment backfired politically. BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #48
Way to go, BrotherIvan! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #108
These arguments from so-called "Democrats" never cease to shock me! BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #132
There is no wiggle room for these atrocities. Including our illegal invasion of Iraq. Rex Dec 2014 #143
That slippery slope has been well greased BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #155
Exactly. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #145
If it was a Republican in office, there would be howls on this board for prosecutions BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #156
Precisely. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #157
Doesn't anyone think of the victims? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #225
The propaganda has worked BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #227
So torture gets a pass for political expediency. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #202
The Powers That Be SamKnause Dec 2014 #14
Obama is also bound by law to seek to deport those unlawfully in our country. branford Dec 2014 #25
He's deported more people than Bush! The problem here is that his failure to prosecute may well end grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #26
How many people he deported is not really the issue, and you know that. branford Dec 2014 #32
Dick Cheney has a single digit approval rating. No one is going to war to save Dick from grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #199
It's not about Cheney personally, it's about American nationalism, pride, branford Dec 2014 #203
No--see my comments below--your snippets avoided some qualifying language. nt MADem Dec 2014 #42
By that measure, he's also "bound by law" to raid all medical marijuana operations. cheapdate Dec 2014 #30
Failure to do so may result in he himself being complicit in the war crimes. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #180
Exactly as his failure to prosecute medical marijuana operators cheapdate Dec 2014 #249
War crimes are a different legal animal than legalized MMJ. Is their a more heinous crime than grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #252
It does not matter whether war crimes are more heinous than marijuana. branford Dec 2014 #255
Yes. There are more heinous crimes. cheapdate Dec 2014 #276
Not by international treaty, he isn't. You're comparing apples to oranges to KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #72
That's not entirely true. branford Dec 2014 #78
Responses to your points freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #120
Thank you for this. I got to your post about an hour after you posted it and KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #131
Thank you for your kind words, King Charlemagne. nt freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #163
Sigh . . . branford Dec 2014 #146
"Sigh"? freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #164
You really don't disagree with, at least for the most part, branford Dec 2014 #165
Your arguing that all of our treaty obligations are without substance. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #182
First part of Obama's executive order JonLP24 Dec 2014 #231
Please read my numerous posts on the thread. branford Dec 2014 #232
I couldn't advise you JonLP24 Dec 2014 #233
Both parties are not shy about employing the criminal just system against one another. branford Dec 2014 #234
I don't quite see the doom and gloom you do JonLP24 Dec 2014 #235
But the United States qualified its ratification of this convention with "reservations." Vattel Dec 2014 #28
Thank you. Well said. cheapdate Dec 2014 #31
Excellent post, the CIA did all of those things to prisoners. Rex Dec 2014 #158
No one tells the United States of America what it can and cannot do. DeSwiss Dec 2014 #33
The Picard once said treaties are not laws BootinUp Dec 2014 #35
Ratified treaties become law. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #136
Do you have a link? Ah, never mind--I found a copy... MADem Dec 2014 #41
What you are saying is incorrect. Vattel Dec 2014 #55
Look, I read the convention and I provided documentation to prove what I'm saying. MADem Dec 2014 #60
Your reading is clearly inaccurate, and any expert in international law would tell you that. Vattel Dec 2014 #126
You're trying to insist that the UCMJ doesn't constitute "internal law" MADem Dec 2014 #127
Of course UCMJ is internal law. I never denied that, of course. Vattel Dec 2014 #128
"In their right mind" eh? So you're going there? MADem Dec 2014 #129
I apologize for the personal insult. It was uncalled for. Vattel Dec 2014 #130
You're saying what I said. MADem Dec 2014 #172
No, I disagree with what you said for the reasons I gave. Vattel Dec 2014 #196
Well, to be clear, here are my views--torture is bad and we should not do it. MADem Dec 2014 #263
Methinks the reason there is so much "wiggle room" is that the signatories -- not just the US -- Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #91
Precisely. No nation signs these things with the idea that they MADem Dec 2014 #98
"Of course, the devil, as always, is in the details." Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #101
If you're "in with the in crowd," well, "the devil made me do it!" MADem Dec 2014 #102
"I'm not endorsing torture here" SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #188
Oh just stop it. Stop characterizing my remarks. That's LAME. MADem Dec 2014 #190
good luck with that Skittles Dec 2014 #44
I'll alert the media n/t Lil Missy Dec 2014 #50
Two words: prosecutorial discretion. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #53
War crimes are a special case. If prosecutorial discretion was allowed grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #81
Would you kindly care to cite the "war crimes exception" branford Dec 2014 #87
Complicity grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #135
The Nuremberg Principles are used to establish what is a war crime. branford Dec 2014 #147
Article 4 and 7 clearly indicate that the torturer must grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #150
Again . . . branford Dec 2014 #154
are you saying it is impractical for him to fulfill his legal obligations under the treaty? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #178
He is saying the President can't be forced to prosecute hack89 Dec 2014 #274
"thereby rendering the treaty moot... There would be no point in having the law in the first place." Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #94
I'll take it. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #183
They're no more special than most drug crimes, which are also governed by treaty. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #97
You are right. Which is why the State eventually degenerates into a self-mocking farce. nt Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #115
Exactly. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I support prosecutions for torture. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #119
"In the interest of full disclosure, however, I support prosecutions for torture." Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #122
Couldn't have expressed it better myself! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #124
Thank-you. That's very kind of you. nt Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #125
Who decides when there is enough evidence to prosecute? treestar Dec 2014 #134
The ONLY thing I expect Obama to do is full pardons all around. Sweep it under the rug and keep look blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #54
K&R JEB Dec 2014 #58
The Attorney General is bound by law to prosecute torture. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #63
Bingo. OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #65
I think Holder should either prosecute or resign. Preferably the former. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #66
I was, of course, being facetious... OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #67
Exactly. This is a President who knows the value of imposing Catch 22s on the other side. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #69
One problem branford Dec 2014 #70
That's a likely scenario, with two caveats: OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #75
Our country is, and the buck stops at the President. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #80
"Buck stops"...you realize that was a slogan, not an actual fact? True Blue Door Dec 2014 #84
Hold on! branford Dec 2014 #88
not really arely staircase Dec 2014 #74
so, in your view, he's above the law. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #76
yeah, that is totally what I said. nt arely staircase Dec 2014 #77
In the case of war crimes and torture, this is not the case. If it were, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #79
You're starting catch on, I just don't think you like the implications. nt branford Dec 2014 #89
You don't really think that matters, do you? Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #90
So many people in effect defending Cheney with their fine points of "law". delrem Dec 2014 #93
Who's defending Cheney? MADem Dec 2014 #99
Ah. A "reality based" response. Who'da figured? delrem Dec 2014 #100
Not sure what that means, maybe you can elucidate? MADem Dec 2014 #103
see post #93. nt delrem Dec 2014 #121
Well, I strained my old eyes and found that post, and see that I already replied to it. MADem Dec 2014 #123
I just find the discussion VERY distasteful. delrem Dec 2014 #149
This message was self-deleted by its author MADem Dec 2014 #110
History books are written by the victors, he won. He will not be accountable in life and his TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #105
Now that, I don't accept. He didn't "win." He's a pariah. MADem Dec 2014 #111
A pariah? He is regularly on television, wealthy, and influentia with tentacles still on the levers TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #167
He has shown none of the so-called "shame" mentioned, nor any remorse. delrem Dec 2014 #168
Who is claiming he's been "punished enough by his shame?" MADem Dec 2014 #192
It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #169
It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #170
It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #171
I have no doubt of that, I won't waste a second excusing, wiping, dangling, or overlooking crimes TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #208
Even pariahs are accepted in the salons of other pariahs. MADem Dec 2014 #241
Torture is a crime. It's not nebulous. Claiming it is, is disturbing. "Less kind" is your solution grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #209
Who said torture is NOT a crime? Who said the act of torture is nebulous? MADem Dec 2014 #236
Yeah, but Democrat or Republican, none of the laws really apply to that class of people. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #104
Wow! I'm with you, Jamastiene. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #113
"soft on Republicans and their crimes" BeanMusical Dec 2014 #162
laws only apply to the poor and the voiceless BubbaFett Dec 2014 #112
So he can be prosecuted for not prosecuting? treestar Dec 2014 #133
Amazes me how confident people are that torture hasn't occurred under this administration. nt. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #137
This is not law, it is a treaty. Glassunion Dec 2014 #139
Torture is illegal under us code as well. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #184
Presidents enforce (or don't enforce) laws based on politics and what they like/don't like... MadDAsHell Dec 2014 #144
No doubt the responders on this thread, having passed their bar exams LanternWaste Dec 2014 #152
If I'm reading your sarcasm correctly, OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #197
I passed 3, actually. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #200
Would you ever defend torture? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #211
Of course not. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #212
I don't think ANYONE--save Cheney--would "defend" torture. That argument, that anyone would, MADem Dec 2014 #237
Thank you for saying it! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #238
You are entirely welcome, and season's greetings to you! MADem Dec 2014 #240
You're entirely correct, and season's greetings to you, too! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #242
I'm a Golden Rule type, myself--and not that "Whoever has the gold makes the rules" MADem Dec 2014 #245
I'm a "You can show someone the logic, but you can't make them understand it" type, myself. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #247
I passed two bar exams. branford Dec 2014 #218
Laws don't apply to Superpowers . . . another_liberal Dec 2014 #160
k & r & a-fuckin-men ! n/t wildbilln864 Dec 2014 #166
Says who? This President inherited shit and tried akbacchus_BC Dec 2014 #173
I dunno. Is arresting someone who admitted torturing innocent people to death too much to ask? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #176
Apparently it is.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #189
Executive Orders Don’t Last G_j Dec 2014 #181
Can't he issue an executive order to defer enforcement of this law? n/t hughee99 Dec 2014 #185
Obviously that makes sense JonLP24 Dec 2014 #198
I believe he will. maced666 Dec 2014 #205
Let's hope so... or if America collapses like Nazi Germany, he may find himself in deep trouble. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #210
And the punishment for not doing so is the committee created by the treaty in Art. 21 will write a RB TexLa Dec 2014 #250
Not to mention common human decency. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2014 #267
That, too. n/t Aerows Jan 2015 #278
This thread should not sink Aerows Dec 2014 #268
K&R liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #279
Thank you Aerows Jan 2015 #280
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama is BOUND BY LAW to ...»Reply #197