People, mostly zealots, throw around the word “torture” like there is some settled legal definition of what that term means. Actually, the definition has evolved over time and also even evolved during the two terms of the Bush Administration. If you are going to talk about prosecution for “torture” you have to actually look to a legal definition not throw it around like it is a term of common parlance. The same people who wanted to parse what the definition of “sexual relations” was or what the meaning of “is,” is, make a legal conclusion that torture was committed and the people who ordered are guilty of war crimes, without any further inquiry. I guess the ends do justify the means. In the attempt to exact revenge upon the Bush Administration, lets dispense with any due process, intellectual discussion of what “torture” means under the law, etc.,? The intellectual hypocracy, ignorance, and/or dishonesty, is staggering.
I heard Jonathan Turley on MSNLSD say that there is “insurmountable evidence” that “war crimes” were committed. Really Mr. Turley? You are a law professor? I find that hard to believe. The law relating to torture has evolved as has the question of whether non enemy combatants were even entitled to some limited modicum of Consitutional Due Process rights. Have you ever heard of “ex post facto” laws?
You know that there was no certititude to the legal definition of torture as applied to non enemy combatants, yet you make an idiotic statement like the one set forth above. Actually it is not merely a statement it is a legal conclusion without evidence, trial, due process, or inquiry into specific legal terms. You bandy these terms about as if to charge someone and impugn them you only need to use the terms “torture” or “war crimes” like you would around the kitchen table in a family debate. Grow up, or grow some intellectual honesty, and stop spewing legal conclusions you have no basis to make.