|
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Further proof that you never read the Andrew McCarthey article. It is explained in there. The case involved a refugee under an order for deportation to his native Haiti for imprisonment. He fought removal under the CAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), claiming that, due to various maladies, he would suffer excruciating pain and die if sent to a Haitian jail, where he would unquestionably be denied necessary medical care. The Justice Department did not seriously dispute Pierre’s allegations. But it countered that, even assuming their validity, there could be no torture because a government official’s knowledge that an action, such as denying treatment, “might cause severe pain and suffering” is insufficient under governing law. To establish torture as a matter of law — as opposed to a matter of demagoguery — an additional showing of a deliberate purpose to cause severe pain and suffering is required: |
Like I said, not intending to do a crime does not mean a crime has not been committed.
| quote: | I want to go back to this statement you made earlier:
If you believe that, you must believe in the unbridaled hypocricy that goes along with it... because the Obama Justice Department is FAVORABLY citing the same exact "specific intent" distinction in another "torture" case for their benefit while trying to use it against Yoo and Bybee. You can't have it both ways, and neither can Obama and his cronies. Read on:
You can read the brief here--> http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest...f8d948e40c4.pdf
Pay attention because this is where the hypocricy is highlighted:
This is the decision that was agreed upon 10-3 by the 3rd Circuit Judges. "Without an evil motive to torture the victim, there is no torture even if great pain and suffering result." Again, you can't have it both ways man. To conclude:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?...YzYyODU=&w=MA== |
If there is hypocrisy then there is a problem. But don't even try to take inconsistencies in executive policy and trump that as an argument for torture.
|
