drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

It IS mostly Truthier...

But need not be construed as a contradiction
Hicks has previously claimed he was abused by the U.S. military but said in his plea agreement that he has never been illegally treated while in U.S. custody.

Rights groups and foreign governments have long condemned the prison at the U.S. Guantanamo naval base on the eastern tip of Cuba for what they say is abuse of prisoners' rights.

[ cf Australian convicted in Guantanamo tribunal ]
Just because one got tortured by the americans does NOT mean that it would be an illegal act.

Americans DO recall that the american congress passed the 'Sgt Schultz Defense Act' in which american personnel can appeal to their Religious Belief that they had been given a lawful order, or that they believed that some one some where Might have issued a lawful order, or that a lawful order could have been post-factor issued if required, as a legal defense for any war crime, including Torturing, and Murdering....

So it is really not a problem that Hicks is supporting the american position that there was no 'illegal' treatement, since, in america, it is perfectly Legal unless actually forced to be stopped, or that the person under question is finally willing to confess to the crime, whether or not it occured, or was illegal at the time of occurance...

Ah Yes, how much More Progress we are making into that safer place where Only Blind Loyalty To The Divinity of Dubya really matters, until of course the Prez and His Posse decide that you are no longer worthy of the Blessings of the Divinity of Dubya, and cut You adrift....
Tags: religion, torture, war

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.