|
Dear Dick, (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
irrelevant. however im not sure which exact legislation you are talking about. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8030800304.html
I'm not exactly sure if this necessarily follows, but since Congress attempted to pass it last year and had it vetoed by Bush, perhaps this is what Obama was building on as a statute. Admittedly that's weak, and I'm more inclined to think it's more of a matter of what I outlined with Hamdan and Common Law 3 instead.
| quote: | | but again, as far as your wishes of putting Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al in prison, youre going to need more than a zealot at the DoJ. (not sayning Holder is btw) |
I wasn't stating it would be done exclusively by Holder and the DoJ alone. They would merely get the ball rolling based on their decision on whether or not there were laws broken and successful convictions that would follow.
| quote: | | yes, and possibly more. youre going to need a clear definition of the law in question as it relates to waterboarding detainees by the Federal Executive in a time of war. clearly, CA (3) of Geneva is ambiguous at best. |
Says who? You? Here's the case law in question from 1983:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/744/744.F2d.1124.83-2675.html
Case law that demonstrates conviction of waterboarding = legal precedent. No way around it, Q.
As for the "clear definition of the law in question" - how much more clear do you need? As I outlined earlier:
| quote: | And back to Geneva and Common Law article 3, as you know Hamdan upheld that Common Law Article 3 applies to the detainees, which means we had to abide by that law since all international treaties that we sign are ratified in our own Constitution. And if you recall, we CONVICTED someone and sent them up to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding our soldiers in WWII for breaking the Geneva Conventions.
So we know that you can't waterboard someone under Geneva. We also know that Common Law applies to detainees, which means we should not have waterboarded them either (and the legalese bull that Yoo and Bybee did was not just a joke, but an outright embarrassment to our law and country). So it certainly goes to follow that a law is already in our books, both as precedent (see 1983 case) and as Constitutional law (as outlined in Geneva, Common Law 3, and the Hamdan case).
Combine this with the fact that Obama's Executive Order telling the CIA must abide by the Army Field manual, again I see it as a moot point that Congress has to come in AGAIN and specifically try and make waterboarding a statutory law in accordance to Common Law 3.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=522542&forumid=66&perpage=12&pagenumber=3 |
I don't know how that could be more clear. By our own standards of upholding, prosecuting, and convicting those who waterboarded our soldiers (and in the case in our own government, a citizen in Texas by a Sheriff), how could those rules no longer apply now? Because you said so? Because only now do we need a precise definition of waterboarding = torture, despite historical references clearly outlining it as such based on our prosecutions of it?
That really isn't much of an argument for you to hold. |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
| Yes. Dear Richard, you have had your time. We are mostly sick of hearing your statements. We do not specifically ask that you stop speaking out because while it may bring short gratification to yourself and many others, in the long run it only serves to solidify President Obama's extraordinary approval ratings. Keep up the great work! |
|
|
| The17sss |
Opus... this may be at odds with what you're saying. As per waterboarding... did everyone miss the House Judiciary Committee hearing the other day where Eric Holder "inadvertently destroyed the warped basis for his claim that waterboarding, as administered by the CIA, amounted to torture"? Andrew McCarthey, a former federal prosecuter, points out in his article from yesterday the fatal flaw in Holder's theory, and how he got pretty much annihilated during questioning.... which was done by Dan Lungren, California's former state attorney general, and Louie Gohmert, the former chief judge of a Texas appeals court.
This is what ensued:
| quote: | Rep. Lungren pointed out that if the attorney general truly believes “waterboarding is torture,” he must also think we torture our own Navy SEALs and other special-operations personnel when we waterboard them as part of their training. “No . . . not in the legal sense,” countered Holder. You see, said he, it’s “a fundamentally different thing,” because "we’re doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture — which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It’s for training. It’s different."
But it’s not different because “it’s for training.” Look at the torture statute (Sections 2340 and 2340A of the federal penal code) and try to find a “training” exception. There isn’t one. What removes an act from the ambit of torture (besides lack of severe pain) is intent. Lungren pressed this point, and Holder admitted that the training was “not torture in the legal sense because we’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.” Intent, he acknowledged, was the key question.
Then, Lungren pounced. The CIA interrogators who questioned top al-Qaeda captives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah intended no more harm to them than Navy instructors intended to their SEAL trainees. In fact, we know that the CIA went to great lengths, under Justice Department guidance, precisely to avoid severe harm. Their purpose, Rep. Lungren observed, was to “solicit information,” not to inflict torture.
Holder was trapped. He responded with some blather about how “when the Communist Chinese did [waterboarding], when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition, we knew then that that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that is violative of . . . all the statutes that recognize what torture is.”
Let’s put aside that it’s unlikely the Spanish Inquisition had a torture statute — after all, the United States managed to get along without one until 1994. Let’s even ignore the fact that the regimes Holder cited are not known to have rigorously limited their practitioners to no more than six applications of water (none longer than 40 seconds long) during any interrogation session (none longer than two hours long) on any day (during which there could be no more than two sessions) in any month (during which there could be no more than five days on which waterboarding occurred). Let’s just stick with intent. Holder’s exemplars involve the sadistic, programmatic infliction of severe, lasting, and often lethal pain — “water treatment” nowhere near as benign as the CIA’s, frequently coupled with atrocities like beating, rape, burning, and other unspeakable abuses. The practices of those regimes were designed exactly to torture, whether out of vengeance, the desire to intimidate a population, or the coercion of false confessions for show-trials — not to collect true, life-saving intelligence for the protection of civilian populations.
When Rep. Gohmert followed up on the issue of intent, it became starkly apparent that our attorney general is either badly ill-informed about the law, or simply willing to misstate it. Gohmert asked: “If our officers, when waterboarding, had no intent to do permanent harm and, in fact, knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and their only intent was to get information to save people in this country, then they would not have tortured, under your definition. Isn’t that correct?”
Holder summarily rejected this assessment, lamely attempting to fend it off by saying it would depend “on the intention of the person.” But of course, Gohmert had already stated the intention, very exactingly, in his hypothetical. In a corner again, Holder blundered. Whether Gohmert’s example would constitute torture, he surmised, suddenly depended not so much on the intention of the officers but on whether their act (i.e., waterboarding) would have the “logical . . . result” of “physically or mentally harm[ing] the person.”
Gohmert demurred, asserting: If “someone has to believe that they are doing harm to someone in order to . . . torture, then if . . . you knew without any question there was no harm being done, then there’s no torture.”
Holder replied, "No, I wouldn’t say that. . . . You can delude yourself into thinking that “what I’m doing is not causing any physical harm, it’s not causing any mental harm,” and somebody, a neutral trier of fact . . . could look at that and make the determination that, in spite of what you said, that what you have indicated is not consistent with the facts, not consistent with your actions, and therefore you’re liable under the statute for the harm that you caused."
That is completely wrong. What Holder described is the legal concept of a “general intent” crime. Most crimes fall into this category. To find guilt, all the jury (the “neutral trier of fact”) has to determine is (a) that you knew what you were doing (i.e., you intended to shoot the gun or rob the bank — you didn’t do it by mistake), and (b) the result was the logical outcome that anyone who performed such an act should have expected.
Torture, however, is not a general-intent crime. It calls for proof of specific intent. As I recently recounted, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals explained the difference in its Pierre case last year: to establish torture, it must be proved that the accused torturer had “the motive or purpose” to commit torture. Sharpening the distinction, the judges used an example from a prior torture case — an example that thoroughly refutes Holder’s attempt to downgrade torture to a general-intent offense: “The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”
To state the matter plainly, the CIA interrogators did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so. The law of the United States holds that, even where an actor does inflict severe pain, there is still no torture unless it was his objective to do so. It doesn’t matter what the average person might think the “logical” result of the action would be; it matters what specifically was in the mind of the alleged torturer — if his motive was not to torture, it is not torture.
One might have expected Holder to know that. The argument was used in a DOJ filing before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals only three weeks ago. Indeed, the Haitian example cited by the Third Circuit is quoted here, word-for-word, from the brief filed by Holder’s own department.
The bottom line is, Rep. Lungren skillfully steered Attorney General Holder into the truth: As a matter of law, CIA waterboarding — like the same waterboarding actions featured in Navy SEALs training — cannot be torture because there is no intention to inflict severe mental or physical pain; the exercise is done for a different purpose. When Rep. Gohmert’s questioning made it crystal clear that Holder’s simplistic “waterboarding is torture” pronouncement was wrong, the attorney general — rather than admitting error — tried to change the legal definition of torture in a manner that contradicted a position the Justice Department had just urged on the federal courts. It seems that, for this attorney general, there is one torture standard for Bush administration officials, and another one for everybody else.
Good to see Holder has ended all that unseemly politicizing of the Justice Department. |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?...zk2ZDMwNGRmMDQ=
Think 1 single network news program, cable news program (other than maybe Fox), or any main stream media outlet will report this? Nope. Think if McCain was president and his AG got dismantled in a hearing on the issue of torture it would get reported? Yup. |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
| quote: | | As per waterboarding... did everyone miss the House Judiciary Committee hearing the other day where Eric Holder "inadvertently destroyed the warped basis for his claim that waterboarding, as administered by the CIA, amounted to torture"? |
What? Who's assessment is this?
Even this article being from the National Review, it doesn't even say this.
I read this article and Eric Holder's argument seems sound to me.
I certainly would not mind having this interview all across the main networks and I support his statements. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by thedoggyworld
Eric Holder's argument seems sound to me. |
that would be illogical if you actually knew the legal difference between "general intent" and "specific intent".
| quote: | | I read this article |
Eric Holder's position on torture appears illogical if you understood the article. |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
that would be illogical if you actually knew the legal difference between "general intent" and "specific intent".
Eric Holder's position on torture appears illogical if you understood the article. |
That's a real nice way of saying nothing.
First the article is from the National Review. I do not pay much at attention at all to this largely biased, completely editorial publication. Did I mention that it's one of the most biased publications around?
General intent, specific intent, this "article" which is crap in the first place does not even talk about this. It talks about whether there or not waterboarding would be considered torture in Navy Seals training. Of course Eric Holder blows it out the of the park with a sound, reasoned response. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by thedoggyworld
That's a real nice way of saying nothing.
First the article is from the National Review. I do not pay much at attention at all to this largely biased, completely editorial publication. Did I mention that it's one of the most biased publications around?
General intent, specific intent, this "article" which is crap in the first place does not even talk about this. It talks about whether there or not waterboarding would be considered torture in Navy Seals training. Of course Eric Holder blows it out the of the park with a sound, reasoned response. |
listen to yourself. you refuse to even acknowledge a counter-point based on your prejudices.
how are you any different from the conservative ideologues you mock at the drop of a hat? you're not. your content feeding your own ignorance while applauding a United States Attorney General that confuses the basic tenents of prosecutorial law (general and specific intent is his bread and butter) just because he's Obama's AG. thats not only assinine but immediately makes me question why the youre in this particular sub-forum in the first place other than maybe you just want to see how smart you can sound. so far it's utter failure.
the article is provided as a counter-point. address the point, or ignore the point and go argue about something else :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by thedoggyworld
Of course Eric Holder blows it out the of the park with a sound, reasoned response. |
humor me 'cause i'm stupid - what response are you referring to? |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
humor me 'cause i'm stupid - what response are you referring to? |
I do agree that there is a very big difference between navy seals training and the cia using this against al qaeda. He states several times that it is a matter of intent. In the navy seals the intent is to train the person; used by the CIA it is intended to inflict torture.
I do not really know what point you are talking about. You are saying things that are not even said in this article, which is not THAT BAD but it is still from the National Review.
I support Eric holder generally because I agree with what he says, not just because he is Obama's AG. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by thedoggyworld
First the article is from the National Review. I do not pay much at attention at all to this largely biased, completely editorial publication. Did I mention that it's one of the most biased publications around?
General intent, specific intent, this "article" which is crap in the first place does not even talk about this. It talks about whether there or not waterboarding would be considered torture in Navy Seals training. Of course Eric Holder blows it out the of the park with a sound, reasoned response. |
Classic liberal move there... go after the "bais" nature of the "publication" to draw attention away from the solid legal credentials of the author. I'll say the same thing I said to Krypt: the article was written by former NY Assistant State's Attorney Andrew McCarthey, who lead the prosecution against the 1993 WTC bombing suspects Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, and also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He's also the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center for Law and Counterterrorism. The guy has had a firm handle on counterterrorism law longer than you have been alive; It wasn't written by some blogger wingnut with a keyboard and a political axe to grind.
Based on McCarthey's credentials, would you say it is more wise to listen to your opinion or his on such matters? |
|
|
| vinnie97 |
| Since when are enemy combatants even eligible for protection under the Geneva convention? They are an entity in and of themselves. |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
I will say this. The NR has a political agenda every single time it is published. In terms of this guy's credentials, they're about as relevant as the nature of the publication.
If you want a debate, don't show up posting editorials and then go on to claim that it's not an editorial because of the author's credentials.
Anyone can write an editorial and that's what the guy did. I don't care but I'd prefer not to read his interpretation and opinion if it's written in the NR because I know beforehand just by looking at the source of the article the stance he will take.
Are you saying that every liberal with equal or greater to credentials than this person should be heeded to also? I haven't heard that kind of statement in awhile.
LAST all I did was agree to Eric Holder's argument. Typical conservative, lash out at free speech. |
|
|
|
|
