HELEN THOMAS: Bush Says "We Do Not Torture"-Will He Say It Under Oath?

[kpete]

Last updated October 11, 2007 4:56 p.m. PT

U.S. torture tactics shame us all
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Thank goodness for whistle-blowers, those public servants who think Americans should know the harm that is being inflicted in our name.

Some of those high-minded officials recently revealed to The New York Times that the Bush administration has abandoned its 2004 legal opinion that torture is "abhorrent" and instead has resumed "brutal interrogations."

..........

Obviously sensitive to such shameful reports, President Bush said twice: "We do not torture."

It may come down to what he means by "torture."

Unfortunately, his poor credibility in the run-up to the war against Iraq requires that he deliver more details rather than make simple assertions. Will he say it under oath? And will he define "torture"?

more at:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/335178_thomas12.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. who thinks that an oath will make any difference? Honestly, that is foolish

and naive.

[Disturbed]

3. Of course he would.

In his demented mind what has been done so far isn't Torture.

[WinkyDink]

2. Of course, he would! Laws mean literally NOTHING to Bush. Laws = words, and Bush has utter contempt

for words and the paper they're written on.

[L. Coyote]

4. That was before he went home and Laura read him the definition from Wiki

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Source is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, United Nations, 10 December 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

[Kagemusha]

5. Abandon the thought now. Presidents do not get sworn under oath for such things

It's a very old separation of powers dispute and since you can't punish a President short of impeachment for lying under oath, it's a) an insulting sign of distrust and b) a diminishing of the position of the President to concede that Congress should have ordinary power to enforce such oaths short of impeachment. No President, including Clintons past or future, would accede to that.

Saying it under oath isn't the point. Being publicly seen to be using weasel words to describe un-American practices that are, because the President's lawyers say so, fully and completely legal until the courts say otherwise, is the problem. He is literally telling us, who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

I'll take the lying eyes, thanks.

[VP505]

6. Why not,

he has NOTHING to loose as NOBODY will prosecute him for it, besides whether his statement is a blatant lie or not is just subjective enough that he could lie his way around it.

[Orsino]

7. No. Because he will never be put under oath.

Daddy's Money saw to it long ago that he would never have to face the consequences of his failures. He will walk.

[janx]

8. You beat me to it.

These guys were born and raised to be politicians, and they will ALWAYS avoid testifying under oath.