From: "Robert Comer" 

>I don't recall anyone authorizing torture Rich, though I realize it's
>popular on the left to call it the "torture bill."

So why do they need retroactive immunity?

--
Bob Comer


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:452328b9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>I don't recall anyone authorizing torture Rich, though I realize it's
>popular on the left to call it the "torture bill."
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:4522f101$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> My mistake on the prior to 9/11.
>>
>> When has there ever been any legislation in our country retroactively
>> protecting anyone from war crimes? Also I very much doubt that this
>> portion of the legislation was written to protect the service men/women.
>> This was written to protect Bush, Cheney and their appointees who
>> authorized torture ignoring international law.
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:4522ea05$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Cafferty is an ass of the first order.
>>>
>>> Prior to 9/11?  Shouldn't that be after 9/11??
>>>
>>> The legislation is needed to protect our service men and women and CIA
>>> personnel from being hauled into court by some eurotrash idiot like Phil
>>> or Adam in the job of local prosecutor or judge.  You know sort of like
>>> what has happened to Tom Delay and the local idiot prosecutor from
>>> Travis County, Austin, Texas.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:4522e1bb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Deep inside the legislation is a provision to pardon Bush and his
>>>> administration for any crimes ( torture etc )  to detainees prior to
>>>> 9/11/2001. But if Bush says there was no torture then why
did he need
>>>> this retroactive immunity for possible war crimes?
>>>>
>>>> CNN Cafferty report at
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ&eurl=
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5