|
Shock jock who supported torture changed by being waterboarded... (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
What I'm saying is that when it was used on those 3 guys it was legal, and it is impossible for the AG to say otherwise even now, that what they did was outside the bounds of the law (esp. when he was questioned about the Pierre precident and given the specific intent vs. general intent legal definitions). |
Again, I have no idea what the Pierre precedent is. And what happens when the law itself is not lawful?
| quote: | | Well, that may be the case... but I think the more dangerous precident being set is that of a new administration trying to prosecute policy decisions that they disagree with from the previous administrtion, which were legally made at the time. Stripping them of law licenses and things of that nature... that will only contribute to current attorneys being hesitant or scared to be involved in the legal practice of shaping policy for whoever the current administration is. |
It's not about policy decisions. The Justice Dept does not make policy decisions. The roll of John Yoo and the Office of Legal Counsel, was to provide objective legal counsel to the executive branch. Their roll wasn't to formulate legal opinions around the executive branch's set policy objectives.
I think Scott Horton says it best...
"Let us assume that the techniques employed on Jamadi – including the likely fatal “Palestinian hanging” approach – were within the scope of the torture memoranda. Were charges to be brought against the agent who had custody of Jamadi and used the fatal technique, he would certainly plead the torture memoranda as an affirmative defense. Confronted with such claims, a truly independent prosecutor would have to consider the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous 'Night and Fog Decree.'"
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/...rl-schmitt.html |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
edit: *ahem* its 12:23  |
You're still up :p |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
nathan you shouldn't have put this thread in the cor :mad: it belongs in the political/debate :disbelief
|
Sometimes I want a more broad discussion. The PDD can get overly technical. Not saying this thread isn't getting technical with all the legal mumbo jumbo, but sometimes the COR is better.
| quote: | | edit: *ahem* its 12:23 |
I'm still packing. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Water boarding is psychological torture. PERIOD. |
if this the extent to which you assert the previous administration's legal culpability in the 18 months after 9/11 then it's safe to say your position done and found wanting.
if an American Army soldier during Vietnam and a Japanese Army regular during WWII are the extent to which you can assert the same legal culpability then your position is done and found wanting.
there is no further discussion needed between you and i on this subject. |
|
|
| hundred |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
:) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop::) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop: :) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :eyes: :conf: :whip: :clown: :toothless :sadgreen: :stongue: :thepirate :disbelief :gsmile: :wtf: :haha: :happy2: :nervous: :toocool: :tongue2 :crazy: :tongue3 :eyespop:
Thats much how this thread is. |
beautiful |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Again, I have no idea what the Pierre precedent is. And what happens when the law itself is not lawful? |
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:
| quote: | | 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.” |
I want to go back to this statement you made earlier:
| quote: | | "The Supreme Court pwned John Yoo and the corrupt Justice Dept which went down in flames in its own imcompetance." |
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:
| quote: | Even as the OPR report is being finalized, even after Obama declared himself open to the possibility of criminal prosecution against the Bush officials, and even after Holder promised to conduct an investigation that would “follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us”, the Obama Justice Department is relying on the very same legal analysis in order to urge a federal appeals court to reject torture claims. In fact, as the Obama Justice Department argued to that appeals court a little over a week ago, the torture law analysis in question has already been adopted by another federal appeals court.
Construing federal anti-torture law — which is derived from the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) — Bybee and Yoo’s memoranda stressed that torture is a “specific intent” crime. As the lawyers concluded after studying the relevant history, this means it was narrowly drawn by Congress and the ratifiers of CAT to make certain that only those who had an evil motive to inflict severe pain and suffering could be prosecuted. That is, even if the victim of government abuse would surely feel severe pain and suffering, there could be no finding of torture unless the responsible government official was acting with a deliberate and conscious purpose to torture him. It is this theory that has provoked howling on the antiwar Left, which alleges that it was the lawyers’ clever way of green-lighting unlawful prisoner abuse.
Yet, this very theory is now being advanced by the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder. On April 23 of this year, only a day after Holder — taking his lead from the president — promised to investigate Bybee, Yoo, and other government lawyers, the Justice Department filed a brief in a case called Demjanjuk v. Holder in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. The brief urges the federal courts to consider the same torture analysis over which Holder is targeting the Bush lawyers with such fanfare. |
You can read the brief here--> http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest...f8d948e40c4.pdf
Pay attention because this is where the hypocricy is highlighted:
| quote: | The case involves John Demjanjuk, a Nazi collaborator who has been fighting his removal from the United States for years. In a last gasp, Demjanjuk now claims, under the CAT, that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law. Given his advanced age, failing health, and expectations of abuse, he contends that extradition to Germany for trial and incarceration will cause him severe pain and suffering.
This claim may seem frivolous, but the government nevertheless undertook to respond to it. In so doing, prosecutors argued to the court that even if Demjanjuk were put in severe pain, there could be no torture unless he could establish that government officials had an evil motive to inflict severe pain and suffering on him. As the Holder Justice Department puts it on pp. 20–21 of the elusive DOJ brief:
Torture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement”. An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“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.”)
The Justice Department brief goes on to elaborate that, even accepting for argument’s sake all his claims of anticipated physical abuse, Demjanjuk had failed to state a legal torture claim because he had not shown that German officials had deliberately created and maintained conditions that were specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering: “To the extent that German authorities may inadvertently cause Petitioner to experience any degree of discomfort during the course of a criminal prosecution or incarceration, this is not cognizable under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (act causing unintended or unanticipated severity of pain and suffering not torture).”
This is precisely the theory that Bybee and Yoo outlined in the memos that the Justice Department is now citing as a premise for subjecting them to ethical rebuke — and that Obama and Holder have intimated may be grounds for prosecution. Bybee and Yoo reasoned that unless CIA interrogators specifically meant to inflict severe pain and suffering on the high-level al Qaeda detainees they were interrogating, there could be no legally viable claim of torture.
It is, moreover, highly significant that the Justice Department, in its Demjanjuk brief, so heavily relied on the Third Circuit’s Pierre case. |
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:
| quote: | That this was the controversial Bybee/Yoo theory was not lost on the Pierre Court. The three minority judges pointed out that the majority was adopting it even though the Justice Department’s OLC, under new management in 2004, had withdrawn the 2002 Bybee/Yoo guidance. That point, however, only underscores the persuasiveness of the Bybee/Yoo position. The 2004 OLC’s retraction declined to condemn the Bybee/Yoo guidance — it just refused to stand behind it and opined, after some hemming and hawing, that it was not “useful to try to define the precise meaning of ‘specific intent’ ” for torture. To the contrary, the Pierre court determined — as had Bybee and Yoo — that this was exactly the difficult question that needed answering. Looking at much of the same law and ratification history that Bybee and Yoo had studied, the ten judges in the Pierre majority came to precisely the same conclusion: essentially, preferring the controversial 2002 OLC guidance to the 2004 OLC retraction. Furthermore, even the three judges who preferred to 2004 OLC analysis agreed that there could be no torture without proof that a government agent acted with the “knowledge or desire” that severe pain or suffering would result.
This Third Circuit legal theory is the exact same legal theory the Obama administration has urged the federal court to adopt in Demjanjuk, where it is fending off torture allegations. It is, simultaneously, the exact same legal theory developed by Bybee and Yoo — the legal theory that forms the basis for the Obama administration’s signaled determination to condemn morally, and potentially to prosecute criminally, its political adversaries.
Given that the Bush DOJ memos in question evince an assiduous effort not to cross the line into torture — i.e., they demonstrate the very opposite of the evil motive to inflict torture that the Obama DOJ has just told a top federal court is necessary to establish a violation — it is simply shameful for the Justice Department to be pursuing this partisan witch-hunt. |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?...YzYyODU=&w=MA== |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| If waterboarding isn't torture, then why the hell do we bother? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| You guys are lucky I have a flight in 1 1/2 hour and i cant respond. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I stopped reading for about the last page or so because, quite frankly, you all ing suck. I know that this following statement is going to be incredibly hypocritical after having said that, but all of the personal attacks and bashing that you guys have done just seem incredibly petty, childish and immature. I especially love how, just like the rest of the country, you're all so set in your "Right vs. Left" ways. you.
Over the last year I've sat here and heard all of this talk about "bi-partisanship" and people coming together and trying to see eye-to-eye. Yet every single time I read any sort of political news, all I see is "Right vs. Left." I know that it has been reiterated time and again by the guy running this bitch (who is equally to blame), but that gets us nowhere. Not a single Goddamned one of you are willing to compromise on this issue.
If you posted in this thread bashing the "Liberals" and claiming to be Conservative, you've done nothing but spew back the same rhetoric that every other identifying Conservative has done over the last few months. Likewise goes for all of you who identify as Liberals.
The bickering, blame-game, name-calling and downright elementary school attitudes are what is wrong with politics. Each side is so set on trying to deface the other that they're too afraid to sit down and compromise, because that would cause their own side to shun them and make them look just as horrible.
This country is a piece of , and you're all playing into it and making it worse.
/rant |
This has always been the nature of both politics and religion though. I would say it's a somewhat adaptive blip that's survived (through utility) since the days when religious sects were practically equal to race and ethnicity, merely due to the lack of transportation and mass communication. Every group that involves humans is an heirarchy - a pecking order - sports shall always have their MVPs, armies hand out medals and ranks, rich people are fat, etc. And when there is profit to be gained (whether that be monetary or otherwise) there shall be vehemence and competition. You've probably never, ever heard of the religious and political movements that at some point in time didn't engage in some sort of defensive measure, whether it be violent or social, because memes like that simply don't survive.
Really, the US is just one of many examples of what happens when a nation gets too big for its belt, embraces too much change, not enough, etc. Really, it's a social thing that I simply cannot imagine us without. Because at the heart of every ideology, every social or political movement that rallies people under some sort of unified perspective - however altruistic it's drummed up to be for the ratings, of course - There are people who seek to profit and gain from the ensuing chaos (an ironic staple of the world), and the most effective way of doing so is pitting the willing against one another, and see what happens. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You guys are lucky I have a flight in 1 1/2 hour and i cant respond. |
:stongue: :stongue:
But I was looking forward to your usual 90 minutes of irrefutable diatribe! |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The question that seems to be avoided by most defenders of waterboarding is:
"Well, if the legal definition of 'torture' doesn't yet cover something that is called 'torture' by practically everyone who experiences it, perhaps the definition needs changing?" |
Still waiting for an answer. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I am afraid your wait is in vain. Conservatives don't like to second-guess things... that's kind of what makes them conservatives. |
|
|
|
|
