Cheney;" Yeah, I did it"

[Nbadan]

Darth Cheney has dropped the facade of being a decent human being, joining the likes of Pot Pol and Stalin in 'doing it for their country'.....

By Scott Horton
February 15, 4:21 PM
Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?


After he was indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton, vice president Aaron Burr fled to South Carolina, to hide out with his daughter. Another vice president, Spiro Agnew, kept completely silent before pleading nolo contendere on corruption charges. Former vice president Dick Cheney, on the other hand, seems proud of his criminal misadventures. On Sunday, he took to the airwaves to brag about them.

“I was a big supporter of waterboarding,” Cheney said in an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. He went on to explain that Justice Department lawyers had been instructed to write legal opinions to cover the use of this and other torture techniques after the White House had settled on them.

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture? Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance. Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases.

What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution. Dick Cheney wants to be prosecuted. And prosecutors should give him what he wants.

Harpers (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558)

That's the kind of arrogance that comes from years of thumbing your nose at international law and getting away with murder...

[SouthernFried]

I'm a big supporter of Cheney and how they used waterboarding...

...and a big detractor of idiots like NBADAN, and how he/they "use" waterboarding.

SIG

[Nbadan]

Makes sense...you torture us with all your posts..

RpMUhoPtPaQ

[ChumpDumper]

I'm a big supporter of Cheney and how they used waterboarding...Why?

Please explain.

[SouthernFried]

Why?

Please explain.

Why? Because.

Please explain? Your not worth the effort.

Needless to say...Cheney is probably the clearest thinker in politics right now.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? Because.

Please explain? Your not worth the effort.

Needless to say...Cheney is probably the clearest thinker in politics right now.Look, if you can't explain yourself, don't whine about it.

Needless to say...you are probably the biggest douche on the board right now.

Idiot.



Cheney shit all over himself saying the underpants bomber should have been handled differently when he was actually handled in the same manner the shoe bomber was by the Bush administration.

"Clearest thinker" :lmao

You are as full of shit as Cheney.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm a big supporter of Cheney and how they used waterboarding...

...and a big detractor of idiots like NBADAN, and how he/they "use" waterboarding.

SIG
Same here.

The only way to make such a case stick would be to make the definition of torture different than understood at the time. However, our constitution does not allow for "ex-post-facto" convictions.

[mogrovejo]

Darth Cheney has dropped the facade of being a decent human being, joining the likes of Pot Pol and Stalin

The American left is filled with nutjobs these days. No wonder they can't govern.

[DarrinS]

Pot Pol?

[ElNono]

The American left is filled with nutjobs these days. No wonder they can't govern.

Like who?

[DarrinS]

And let's not forget, Cheney killed 3000 Americans on 911, right Dan?

[Cry Havoc]

It's disgusting that any human being could be for water boarding. Or support someone as obviously corrupt as Cheney.

[TeyshaBlue]

Darth Cheney has dropped the facade of being a decent human being, joining the likes of Pot Pol and Stalin in 'doing it for their country'.....

By Scott Horton
February 15, 4:21 PM
Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?



Harpers (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558)

That's the kind of arrogance that comes from years of thumbing your nose at international law and getting away with murder...


See? You do know how to correctly credit an article. Good Job!:lol

[boutons_deux]

With the repeated example of the plutocracy being above the law, why should any common citizen bother to comply?

Because the oligarchs control the police.

Law-snubbing teabaggers and militiamen are watching.

[hater]

please don't compare Cheney to Stalin. Cheney is a damn pussy next to him

[clambake]

by definition, dick is a traitor.

[ElNono]

I'm glad he's gone. Now we need to be vigilant enough to keep him away from any kind of decision power.

[elbamba]

Darth Cheney has dropped the facade of being a decent human being, joining the likes of Pot Pol and Stalin in 'doing it for their country'.....


These types of comparisons show how little you know or understand about history.

[ElNono]

These types of comparisons show how little you know or understand about history.

Or Pot Pol... or Stalin...

[elbamba]

Or Pot Pol... or Stalin...

I think that our politicians have done enough to demand their own brand. We no longer need the "Hitler" type cliches.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can I waterboard dick? I'd REALLY love to do that..

[ElNono]

I think that our politicians have done enough to demand their own brand. We no longer need the "Hitler" type cliches.

Why restrict it to politicians? There' plenty of americans (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146515) that drank the kool-aid too.

[spursncowboys]

Why? Because.

Please explain? Your not worth the effort.

Needless to say...Cheney is probably the clearest thinker in politics right now.
This post 100%

[spursncowboys]

Can I waterboard dick? I'd REALLY love to do that..
So you are against waterboarding only when it is used on mass murdering terrorists?

[spursncowboys]

I think that our politicians have done enough to demand their own brand. We no longer need the "Hitler" type cliches.
It diminishes the severity of what these socialist dictators did to their own people, and others.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So you are against waterboarding only when it is used on mass murdering terrorists?

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron. i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..

[ElNono]

So you are against waterboarding only when it is used on mass murdering terrorists?

That would imply that Cheney is no a mass murdering terrorist...

(rimshot)

[DarrinS]

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron. i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..



Then there are a LOT of dems you want to punish and shame as well. There's a good reason the Obama admin never conducted this little witch hunt.

Please, don't rewrite history.

[spursncowboys]

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron. i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..
:lol So Bin Laden wasn't involved? KSM wasn't involved? I guess 9/11 terrorists on the plane are the only mass murderers in history.

So your list of people you want to punish:
CIA
Brittish intel
Russian intel
German intel
G W Bush
G. H. Bush
B. Clinton
H. Clinton
J. Kerry

[spursncowboys]

That would imply that Cheney is no a mass murdering terrorist...

(rimshot)
That was ok but what, IMO, you should have said was
"no he is for cheney getting waterboarded"
hey ohhhhhhhhh

[ElNono]

That was ok but what, IMO, you should have said was
"no he is for cheney getting waterboarded"
hey ohhhhhhhhh

Actually, I do not wish torture on anybody, including Dick.

As I said earlier, I'll be rather pleased if the guy is not in a position of power ever again.

[RandomGuy]

Then there are a LOT of dems you want to punish and shame as well [for being responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs.] There's a good reason the Obama admin never conducted this little witch hunt.

Please, don't rewrite history.

I think the people who should have reasonably known that we would be sending in Humvees armored with 1/16" nylon doors, into a low-level conflict where the weapon of choice would be roadside IED's should be prosecuted, when they waited until AFTER people started dying to get off their fat asses and do somethign about it.

I think people that couldn't draw the obvious parallels between the last time a totalitarian dictator was removed, releasing centuries of murderous ethnic tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) and Iraq, where a totalitarian dictator was removed, releasing centuries of murderous ethnic tension, should not be setting war policy.

I think people in charge of strategy, who DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE COUNTERINSURGENCY MANUAL, until 3 years after they committed our troops to fighting a reasonably-predicted counter-insurgency...

Should be fucking lined up against a wall and shot as traitors.

That includes Cheney.

[spursncowboys]

Actually, I do not wish torture on anybody, including Dick.

As I said earlier, I'll be rather pleased if the guy is not in a position of power ever again.
good thing harsh interrogation methods aren't torture.

[ElNono]

good thing harsh interrogation methods aren't torture.

Actually, what's good is that waterboarding and it's ilk is no longer considered a harsh interrogation method.

[spursncowboys]

I think the people who should have reasonably known that we would be sending in Humvees armored with 1/16" nylon doors, into a low-level conflict where the weapon of choice would be roadside IED's should be prosecuted, when they waited until AFTER people started dying to get off their fat asses and do somethign about it.

I think people that couldn't draw the obvious parallels between the last time a totalitarian dictator was removed, releasing centuries of murderous ethnic tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) and Iraq, where a totalitarian dictator was removed, releasing centuries of murderous ethnic tension, should not be setting war policy.

I think people in charge of strategy, who DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE COUNTERINSURGENCY MANUAL, until 3 years after they committed our troops to fighting a reasonably-predicted counter-insurgency...

Should be fucking lined up against a wall and shot as traitors.

That includes Cheney.

monday morning quarterbacking.
I have a big problem with the pentagon knuckle draggers who saw the proficiency of the mraps with the Marines but wanted to get the HMMWV's full worth. But I don't think it is something criminal. The counter insurgency plan wasn't used because the plan was small footprint. That is a good plan too, it just didn't work as well as the counter insurgency which wasn't even created in a functional manner. The greatest military advancements throughout history came in the middle of war. Also it is historical too to fight the present war with the last war's tactics so the guys planning OIF and OEF aren't very far off target as the predecessors from the beg. of time.

[spursncowboys]

Actually, what's good is that waterboarding and it's ilk is no longer considered a harsh interrogation method.
Can you guess the length of time making someone stand becomes torture?

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol So Bin Laden wasn't involved? KSM wasn't involved? I guess 9/11 terrorists on the plane are the only mass murderers in history.

So your list of people you want to punish:
CIA
Brittish intel
Russian intel
German intel
G W Bush
G. H. Bush
B. Clinton
H. Clinton
J. Kerry

what other mass murdering terrorists do you know about? specifically? I will give you a history and civics 101 lesson. Only the president can send troops into harms way. I bet you didn't know that or you wouldn't have included your stupid list. I guess forrest was right stupid is as stupid does. he must have had people like you in mind when he said this..:lmao

[ElNono]

Can you guess the length of time making someone stand becomes torture?

I don't guess or dabble in technicalities.
There's nothing to guess in the wording of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[spursncowboys]

what other mass murdering terrorists do you know about? specifically? I will give you a history and civics 101 lesson. Only the president can send troops into harms way. I bet you didn't know that or you wouldn't have included your stupid list. I guess forrest was right stupid is as stupid does. he must have had people like you in mind when he said this..:lmao

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron. i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..:lmao

[Yonivore]

Gee, if only criminal statutes, and not Article II Powers of the Executive, applied here.

I wonder if anyone's asked the administration if the Taliban dude in Pakistan was mirandized and provided a lawyer, yet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao

So what don't you get dummy? The president laid the case out remember? Oh you're one of those " Bush was duped" crowd..never mind..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee, if only criminal statutes, and not Article II Powers of the Executive, applied here.

I wonder if anyone's asked the administration if the Taliban dude in Pakistan was mirandized and provided a lawyer, yet.

I'm sure you will find a blog to say that they probably did..

[spursncowboys]

I don't guess or dabble in technicalities.
There's nothing to guess in the wording of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It all depends on your definition of torture.

[Winehole23]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.

[Yonivore]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.
Yep. Particularly when the detainee doesn't fit the UN criteria of a person eligible for convention protections.

Words matter; emotions, not so much.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sure you will find a blog to say that they probably did..

Where is John Yoo when you need him?

[Yonivore]

Where is John Yoo when you need him?
Taking Jon Stewart to school.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? Because.

Please explain? Your not worth the effort.

Needless to say...Cheney is probably the clearest thinker in politics right now.


This post 100%Maybe you can explain why Cheney clearly chose to own himself by mirandizing the shoe bomber and putting him into the federal, not military, justice system.

Oh, you're just agreeing that you can't explain either.

Got it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Taking Jon Stewart to school.

Well, as long as he can manufacture justifications for avoiding treaty obligations, laws, and constitutions -- and rationalize them in conversations with standup comedians -- I suppose he's an asset.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you can explain why Cheney clearly chose to own himself by mirandizing the shoe bomber and putting him into the federal, not military, justice system.

Oh, you're just agreeing that you can't explain either.

Got it.
I see you are repeating the latest aired liberal talking points...

The Shoe Bomber was Mirandized before anyone knew the extent of his attempted crime. It was days later that more was known.

[Yonivore]

Well, as long as he can manufacture justifications for avoiding treaty obligations, laws, and constitutions -- and rationalize them in conversations with standup comedians -- I suppose he's an asset.
Tell me, FWD; Bush-haters have had control of the executive and legislative branches for over a year now. Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron.'cause 19 equates 2800+ deaths.

you moron.


i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..
so i guess you're adding obama to that list for afghanistan.

[ChumpDumper]

I see you are repeating the latest aired liberal talking points...

The Shoe Bomber was Mirandized before anyone knew the extent of his attempted crime. It was days later that more was known.:lmao

I see you are repeating the latest Republican excuse for Cheney's hypocrisy.

Dude tried to blow up a plane. Did they not know that at the time?

He still was never put into the military justice system. Even after everything was known.

Ever.

Maybe they just never knew?


Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.

[boutons_deux]

"Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges"

Nobody has any balls. The after-taste of the trauma what the Repugs and Starr did to Clinton still lingers.


Clinton was double-crossed by the Bush 41 Repugs when he agreed not to go after them for their crimes. Fat lot of good that did Clinton.

Also, America LOVES to believe and promote the myths that it can do no wrong, is "exceptional" among peoples, so they don't want to expose the common, crimes of the plutocracy to the world. In fact, America is pretty much a total fantasy land these days.

[ChumpDumper]

Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I see you are repeating the latest Republican excuse for Cheney's hypocrisy.

Dude tried to blow up a plane. Did they not know that at the time?

He still was never put into the military justice system. Even after everything was known.

Ever.

Maybe they just never knew?


Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.
I haven't advocated changing anything for the panty bomber either. It's a waste of time now since so much news was out about him. Any plans and locations he knew, will be changed now. There are plenty of witnesses to put him away for life.

What are you laughing at anyway? Your stupid assumption?

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't advocated changing anything for the panty bomber either. It's a waste of time now since so much news was out about him. Any plans and locations he knew, will be changed now. There are plenty of witnesses to put him away for life.

What are you laughing at anyway? Your stupid assumption?Now I'm laughing because you agree with me and are acting like you don't.

:rollin

The show bomber was mirandized four times.

By the Bush/Cheney administration.

Clear thinking!

[Wild Cobra]

Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.
You seem to claim Cheney has control over what Law Enforcement does on the spot.

Are you claiming they all placed a call to Cheney to get his instructions?

[ChumpDumper]

You seem to claim Cheney has control over what Law Enforcement does on the spot.

Are you claiming they all placed a call to Cheney to get his instructions?I am claiming Bush and Cheney certainly can issue policy directives through the DoJ and FBI regarding terror suspects.

They and you are certainly claiming that Obama can do the exact same thing now.

More hypocrisy.

Just tell me which terror suspects apprehended under Bush in the US were not mirandized.

Should be easy for you.

[FromWayDowntown]

Tell me, FWD; Bush-haters have had control of the executive and legislative branches for over a year now. Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges?

So are you saying that the absence of criminal prosecution is proof that there was no wrongdoing? That the absence of criminal prosecution demonstrates that these "justifications" for ignoring the law are somehow proof that they were legally sound?

How exactly does that logic apply to those who are being detained by our forces without facing any charges? And where, exactly, does the notion of prosecutorial discretion go in your (apparently) binary view of the legalities of Yoo's arguments?

[ChumpDumper]

Any takers?
Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.

[elbamba]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.

Subsequently passed statutes can overturn treaties to govern U.S. law. (i.e. Patriot Act).

Whether it is the right thing to do is another argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Presidents can torture when we're at war.

They can do anything illegal during war, John Yoo said so.

Obama can do anything right now and Yoni can't say anything -- or else he is a traitor.

[elbamba]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.


Any takers?

Because he was captured in the U.S.A. by the FBI and NSI if I am not mistaken. I believe it was in Minnesota or one of the Dakotas.

[ChumpDumper]

Because he was captured in the U.S.A. by the FBI and NSI if I am not mistaken. I believe it was in Minnesota or one of the Dakotas.But Cheney is claiming that the underpants bomber shouldn't be tried in federal court, and he was captured in the US.

It doesn't matter how one is arrested, there is nothing I can see stopping a tribunal from having jurisdiction if the administration wants it. The shoe bomber was in FBI custody in the US and a tribunal was an option.


During a Jan. 16, 2002, news conference announcing charges against Reid, Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked whether he “consider[ed] using a military tribunal in prosecuting [Reid].” Ashcroft replied: “I think people were alert, and that created a factual basis for the kind of court case that we've alleged. I did confer with the Department of Justice — pardon me, with the Department of Defense and with their general counsel — and they had no objection to our proceeding in this matter.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

[Winehole23]

...

[Winehole23]

Subsequently passed statutes can overturn treaties to govern U.S. law. (i.e. Patriot Act).So it would seem, but the Supreme Court ruled subsequent to the MCA of 2006 that Geneva Common Article 3 does apply to unlawful enemy combatants.

[Winehole23]

Also, the Eighth Amendment forbids the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, the Eighth Amendment forbids the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.

[ChumpDumper]

I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.Whom did the founding fathers waterboard?

[Winehole23]

@WC: Google "evolving standards of decency". Originalism is more argumentative than dispositive, and just look at the text: it restricts the actions of the federal government without any reference to persons at all.

[Wild Cobra]

Say what you want. Cruel and unusual punishment, defined by my daughter, would be taking away her cell phone. The viewpoints of a "living constitution" to be interpreted at a whim, are not my beliefs. I believe in interpreting the spirit of it, not the changing social standards.

[elbamba]

But Cheney is claiming that the underpants bomber shouldn't be tried in federal court, and he was captured in the US.

It doesn't matter how one is arrested, there is nothing I can see stopping a tribunal from having jurisdiction if the administration wants it. The shoe bomber was in FBI custody in the US and a tribunal was an option.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

I am not here to argue for Dick Cheney. He can claim whatever he wants. Technically, the underpants bomber was caught in the air, I am not sure where they were flying but I am sure that it was not an American airline. I don't know enough about jurisdiction to give you an answer. I can tell you it would be a great law school test question.

You are wrong with respect to whether it matters where you get arrested. If I get arrested by the the KCPD, they cannot take me to San Antonio to be tried. Breaking the law in KS might not be the same as breaking the law in Texas (i.e. different highway speeds).

The constituion is clear that a state has jurisdiction to convict a person that the state apprehends within its boarders.

[ChumpDumper]

I am not here to argue for Dick Cheney. He can claim whatever he wants. Technically, the underpants bomber was caught in the air, I am not sure where they were flying but I am sure that it was not an American airline. I don't know enough about jurisdiction to give you an answer. I can tell you it would be a great law school test question.Richard Reid was also caught in the air on a flight from Paris after meal service, although it was an American airline. Obviously both were charged with US crimes.


You are wrong with respect to whether it matters where you get arrested. If I get arrested by the the KCPD, they cannot take me to San Antonio to be tried. Breaking the law in KS might not be the same as breaking the law in Texas (i.e. different highway speeds).

The constituion is clear that a state has jurisdiction to convict a person that the state apprehends within its boarders.That has nothing to do with federal vs. military jurisdiction over terrorism suspects. State laws and prosecutions are not being discussed.

[DarrinS]

yep. Particularly when the detainee doesn't fit the un criteria of a person eligible for convention protections.

Words matter; emotions, not so much.


+1

[ChumpDumper]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.


Yep. Particularly when the detainee doesn't fit the UN criteria of a person eligible for convention protections.

Words matter; emotions, not so much.
+1So Yoni and DarrinS are ignorant of the words in the Hamdan decision.

Not surprising.

[Wild Cobra]

This is torture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Streckbett.jpg/800px-Streckbett.jpg

Water-boarding is not torture.

[DarrinS]

Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.



Actually, I think it is PRECISELY because of what happened in the Moussaoui trial that we don't want the likes of a KSM in a civilian court.

[ChumpDumper]

This is torture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Streckbett.jpg/800px-Streckbett.jpg

Water-boarding is not torture.You didn't answer my question.

Whom did the founding fathers waterboard?


Actually, I think it is PRECISELY because of what happened in the Moussaoui trial that we don't want the likes of a KSM in a civilian court.What precisely happened in the Moussaoui trial that threatened democracy as we know it?

Was there a terror attack at the courthouse?

Was Moussaoui acquitted?

Did Bush or Cheney say it was a mistake to try him in federal court?

Let me know PRECISELY what the issue is.

[DarrinS]

So Yoni and DarrinS are ignorant of the words in the Hamdan decision.

Not surprising.



Is KSM an unlawful combatant?

[DarrinS]

What precisely happened in the Moussaoui trial that threatened democracy as we know it?

Was there a terror attack at the courthouse?

Was Moussaoui acquitted?

Did Bush or Cheney say it was a mistake to try him in federal court?

Let me know PRECISELY what the issue is.



If you don't remember all the crap that happened during the Moussaoui trial, you need to go do some reading and refresh your memory. That's not my responsibility.

[ChumpDumper]

Is KSM an unlawful combatant?Hamdan was. Guess you were ignorant of that as well.


If you don't remember all the crap that happened during the Moussaoui trial, you need to go do some reading and refresh your memory. That's not my responsibility.Ah, the old "I don't really know what I'm talking about so I'll just act like I know and not actually say anything" routine.

We all know you are ignorant, Darrin. It's old news.

"Mr. Moussaoui got a fair trial. The jury convicted him to life in prison, where he will spend the rest of his life....I know that it's really important for the United States to stay on the offense against these killers and bring them to justice. And those are my thoughts about the Moussaoui trial."

George W. Bush
May 2006

[DarrinS]

If anyone is interested in seeing all the courtroom exhibits from the Moussaoui trial, they were posted online here:


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/


It was the first time in history that the exhibits of a U.S. criminal trial were published online.

[ElNono]

Yep. Particularly when the detainee doesn't fit the UN criteria of a person eligible for convention protections.

In which way the detainee doesn't fit the criteria?

They certainly fit to be tried in a civilian court as opposed to a military court...

[Yonivore]

In which way the detainee doesn't fit the criteria?

They certainly fit to be tried in a civilian court as opposed to a military court...
In a whole host of ways. You tell me which convention you believe was violated by the enhanced interrogation of any of the al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists and I'll tell you how they don't fit the criteria.

Again, if laws were broken, where are the indictments?

The fact is, no laws were broken and this is all a bunch of Bush-hating rhetoric.

Again, I wonder if that Taliban guy Pakistan and the U.S. captured was Mirandized and provided an attorney.

[ChumpDumper]

In a whole host of ways. You tell me which convention you believe was violated by the enhanced interrogation of any of the al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists and I'll tell you how they don't fit the criteria.Why can't you just tell us why they don't fit the criteria?

No need to further complicate the issue if it is so simple.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, I wonder if that Taliban guy Pakistan and the U.S. captured was Mirandized and provided an attorney.There is no telling if he will be brought to the US at all, is there? Doesn't Afghanistan have a government and a court system now?

[Winehole23]

In a whole host of ways. You tell me which convention you believe was violated by the enhanced interrogation of any of the al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists and I'll tell you how they don't fit the criteria.Common Article 3 of Geneva.

[elbamba]

Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.

So let's hear you explaination? Do you know why?

[Yonivore]

Common Article 3 of Geneva.
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,..."

Are the Taliban or al Qaeda "High Contracting Parties?"

Was Iraq or Afghanistan? (I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do.) But, in either case, I'm not sure the enemy combatants aligned themselves with either government.

I also believe the armed conflict is of "an international character."

[ElNono]

In a whole host of ways. You tell me which convention you believe was violated by the enhanced interrogation of any of the al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists and I'll tell you how they don't fit the criteria.

I made you an honest question to give you the opportunity to support your own claim. I don't see an answer.

[ElNono]

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,..."

Are the Taliban or al Qaeda "High Contracting Parties?"

Was Iraq or Afghanistan? (I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do.) But, in either case, I'm not sure the enemy combatants aligned themselves with either government.

I also believe the armed conflict is of "an international character."

So, you claim they're military detainees? I'd like a straight answer.

[Winehole23]

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,..."

Are the Taliban or al Qaeda "High Contracting Parties?"

Was Iraq or Afghanistan? (I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do.) But, in either case, I'm not sure the enemy combatants aligned themselves with either government.

I also believe the armed conflict is of "an international character."Despite what you think, under Hamdan Common Article 3 applies.

[Winehole23]

Are you familiar with the ruling, Yoni?

[ChumpDumper]

So let's hear you explaination? Do you know why?I do know why courts federal exist and why it was possible to safely and successfully prosecute and convict Moussaoui without reinventing the wheel.

It's simple: the Bush administration had a case against him and won in federal court.

The question now is why that suddenly isn't good enough for the underpants bomber when no one objected to the Moussaoui trial so vehemently back then.

[Winehole23]

Monday to 23 to 28 years in prison in Australia for stockpiling explosive chemicals and firearms for terrorist attacks on unspecified targets . . . .The men, aged 25 to 44, were found guilty last October on charges linked to preparing a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005." Previously: "LONDON - Three British Muslims accused of helping the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks on London’s transportation system in July 2005 went on trial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/world/europe/11britain.html) on Thursday." "The trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6363149.stm) of 29 people accused of involvement in train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 has opened in the Spanish capital, Madrid." "DENPASAR, Indonesia (CNN) -- The first suspect charged with the October 12 Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, has gone on trial (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/05/12/bali.bomb/) in an Indonesian court." "MUMBAI: The sole surviving gunman from last year's Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani national, on Monday pleaded guilty at his trial (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/surviving-mumbai-attacks-gunman-in-dramatic-guilty-plea-20090721-dqzc.html), admitting for the first time his part in the atrocity that killed 166 people."http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/16/cowardice/index.html

Australia, England, Indonesia, Spain and India aren't afraid of trying terrorists. Why are we?

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/16/cowardice/index.html

Australia, Indonesia, Spain and India aren't afraid of trying terrorists. Why are we?We weren't -- before there was a chance to score political points from that manufactured fear.

[DarrinS]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/16/cowardice/index.html

Australia, England, Indonesia, Spain and India aren't afraid of trying terrorists. Why are we?



No one is afraid. I just don't want to pay 1 million per year to try that P.O.S. and, apparently, neither do Dems like Chuck Schumer and mayor Bloomberg.


I say we give him the choice between burning to death or jumping from a 100-story building.

[ChumpDumper]

No one is afraid. I just don't want to pay 1 million per year to try that P.O.S. and, apparently, neither do Dems like Chuck Schumer and mayor Bloomberg.How much money is saved using military tribunals?

[DarrinS]

How much money is saved using military tribunals?


I don't know, but I would think military tribunals are cheaper than Eric Holder's former lawfirm.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know, but I would think military tribunals are cheaper than Eric Holder's former lawfirm.Oh, so your reasons are purely partisan in nature.

That's honest.

[elbamba]

I do know why courts federal exist and why it was possible to safely and successfully prosecute and convict Moussaoui without reinventing the wheel.

It's simple: the Bush administration had a case against him and won in federal court.

The question now is why that suddenly isn't good enough for the underpants bomber when no one objected to the Moussaoui trial so vehemently back then.

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.I told you exactly why -- the Bush administration had a case against them that could be tried in federal court and they tried it. There was no reason to justify it - there has to be a justification to change a case like that to a military tribunal that had to be created for the purpose and failed to meet constitutional muster the first time around. You didn't understand. That is not my problem.

You don't seem to understand the current issue well at all.

People are whining that Abdulmutallab should be tried by a tribunal, when his case is very similar to that of Reid, who was never moved out of the federal justice system. Reid was arrested in the air over international waters trying to blow up a plane, and he was indicted and sentenced in a US district court.

Why should the Abdulmutallab case be tried differently? It certainly doesn't appear to be a jurisdictional issue - if that was the case a federal case wouldn't even be an option.

Please try to read my response next time.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said before, he was captured in the USA. A grand jury determined that was sufficient evidence to go forward on a series of federal felony charges.

If Moussaoui is picked up in Iraq, he gets tried before a military tribunal and would not have access to our federal courts.

You don't really know the "why." I thought for a second there I would get a well reasoned response.Please explain why Ramzi Yousef faced terrorism charges in a New York federal district court and was tried and sentenced by that court after he was captured in Pakistan.

[elbamba]

Please explain why Ramzi Yousef faced terrorism charges in a New York federal district court and was tried and sentenced by that court after he was captured in Pakistan.

He committed a crime here in the USA, in New York. He was captured by the Pakistani government and extradicted to the US, not picked up on a battle field. This was not a military action nor was he picked up by the millitary. There would be no reason or need for him to be tried by a military tribunal.

With respect the the underwear bomber, I could care less where he gets tried. I would argue that he should get tried in a federal court.

I am against bringing in Gitmo prisoners/people picked up by the military and trying them in federal court. It is a waste of money and an unnecessary security risk. I also believe that it is perfectly constitutional to have military tribunals for these prisoners.

[ChumpDumper]

He committed a crime here in the USA, in New York. He was captured by the Pakistani government and extradicted to the US, not picked up on a battle field. This was not a military action nor was he picked up by the millitary. There would be no reason or need for him to be tried by a military tribunal.So, KSM's crime was also committed in New York.


With respect the the underwear bomber, I could care less where he gets tried. I would argue that he should get tried in a federal court.Fantastic.


I am against bringing in Gitmo prisoners/people picked up by the military and trying them in federal court. It is a waste of money and an unnecessary security risk.Another money argument. How much money is saved using tribunals? I need to see a number to be convinced.


I also believe that it is perfectly constitutional to have military tribunals for these prisoners.Depends on the tribunal, remember the first scheme was indeed unconstitutional. Who's to say the current tribunal system won't have to be scrapped after another court challenge? How much did it cost for the first constitutionally flawed one? How much did starting over cost?

I'm trying to understand the blind faith put into this largely ad hoc system of justice and how it has to be so much better than the American federal justice system. I mean one of the terrorists convicted and sentenced by this system is walking free right now without restriction after a few additional months in prison, a reduced sentence he received in a deal obtained in the tribunal system. Did that make us safe? Is he completely rehabilitated?

[Yonivore]

I made you an honest question to give you the opportunity to support your own claim. I don't see an answer.
And, it's in my response to Winehole.

There are a lot of parts to the Geneva Conventions which is why I asked which ones you believe were being violated.

[elbamba]

So, KSM's crime was also committed in New York. ?

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.



Another money argument. How much money is saved using tribunals? I need to see a number to be convinced. ?

Loads of money. These cases will take years to prosecute because unlike some of the aforementioned convictions, most of these people will not admit guilt. Their trials could take years to prosecute. There are endless motions to be filed and then endless apeals to be made. If the prisoners were assigned your average public defender it might not be as big a deal but these people seem to get high profile law firms with resources to burn to represent them.

What numbers do you need to see. These trials will cost over 200 million to prosecute. Millitary tribunals take weeks at the most. All representation and judiciary is paid for with the millitary. A motion will get an answer in a couple of days not 7 months.

Where do I base my numbers and facts. From practicing law in Missouri and Kansas the last several years. I have helped with a few cases in millitary court at Ft. Leavenworth and I can tell you that the differnece in the speed and expenses of a trial is night and day between millitary and civilian.



Depends on the tribunal, remember the first scheme was indeed unconstitutional. Who's to say the current tribunal system won't have to be scrapped after another court challenge? How much did it cost for the first constitutionally flawed one? How much did starting over cost??

Read Breyer's concurrence in Hamdan which was joined by 4 from the majority and it is not hard to imagine that it will be upheld.



I'm trying to understand the blind faith put into this largely ad hoc system of justice and how it has to be so much better than the American federal justice system. I mean one of the terrorists convicted and sentenced by this system is walking free right now without restriction after a few additional months in prison, a reduced sentence he received in a deal obtained in the tribunal system. Did that make us safe? Is he completely rehabilitated?

It is sufficient to do the job. Will it make mistakes? Any court does. Federal courts can screw it up just as easily as millitary. My opinion is that there is no sense in allowing jury trials and complete access to our judicial system, to people who will make a mockery of it and waste my hard earned tax dollars. They will get a fair shake in millitary court.

[ElNono]

And, it's in my response to Winehole.

There are a lot of parts to the Geneva Conventions which is why I asked which ones you believe were being violated.

I did say Article 5 of the declaration of Human Rights...
Winehole mentioned Geneva Common Article 3...

We're still waiting for your honest, straight answer...

[Winehole23]

They will get a fair shake in millitary court.So far they haven't been. Comprehensive case files weren't compiled and the government has lost 32 of ~40 habeas cases. For the 32 who won, that means there wasn't compelling evidence to detain them in the first place, let alone to present charges to a military commission.

In the military tribunals secret evidence and hearsay is permitted. The defendant isn't allowed to know the secret evidence, and he has no right to confront or cross examine his accusers.

How is that a fair shake?

[ElNono]

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.

The constitutionality of part or all of that act is still a big unknown. As seen in the illegal suspension of the Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States), later on turned over by the Supreme Court, it can take just as many years and can also be stalled.

Not to mention that the wording on the Act is counterproductive and already caused cases to be entirely dismissed because of it:

On June 4, 2007, in two separate cases, military tribunals dismissed charges against detainees who had been designated as "enemy combatants" but not as "unlawful enemy combatants". The first case was that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who had been designated as an "enemy combatant" in 2004. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Colonel Peter Brownback ruled that the military tribunals, created to deal with "unlawful enemy combatants," had no jurisdiction over detainees who had been designated only as "enemy combatants." He dismissed without prejudice all charges against Khadr. Also on June 4, Captain Keith J. Allred reached the same conclusion in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

This monstrosity is probably going to be abolished and remembered just like it's cousins, the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)

I actually have no problem trying these people in military tribunals under military law (the same used to deal with spies in the Cold War era).
The problem is that military law actually grants a good amount of rights also, as it should, of due process. Things like discovery of evidence, and the accused being able to examine and defend himself against the accusations.
Obviously, guys like Dick didn't want to take any chances, and came up with the MCA.

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?

[Cry Havoc]

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?

Raping and sodomizing someone isn't torture because we say it isn't.

[Winehole23]

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.In a nutshell, what changed?

[Nbadan]

Raping and sodomizing someone isn't torture because we say it isn't.

Obama needs to release those tapes...the worry of course, is that we will be run out of Iraq and Afghanistan..

[ElNono]

In a nutshell, what changed?

There's actualy plenty of changes. From the cosmetic, scrapping the 'combatants' figure, to the actual important stuff, like striking out the determination of the detainees by a Commision. Stuff like admitting hearsay is still there, it just has some small tweaks to help defendants prepare to the accusation.

Here's a quick rundown on some of the changes:
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L19Section1031MilitaryCommissionsActofS1390Defense Auth071409ms.pdf

Also, these two articles have another fairly quick rundown:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091104.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091130.html

[Winehole23]

Thanks. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

So methods of punishment that the Framers could have never contemplated -- methods involving things like the use of electricity, for instance -- could never be cruel and unusual for Eighth Amendment purposes (in your estimation, at least) because the Framers couldn't have thought of it when they drafted the Bill of Rights?

Dragging criminals behind moving cars -- not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; Framers never dreamed of cars!

Submerging criminals in water and adding electricity? Not cruel and unusual for 8th Amendment purposes; No electricity in 18th Century!!

Right?
I mean the intensity of a torture. Not the specific style.

[ChumpDumper]

Millitary Commision Act of 2006 was not around in the 90s.Nor was it around when KSM was captured, but it's good to invent new systems of justice when needed. Screw tradition and centuries of due process -- we're scared now!


Loads of money. These cases will take years to prosecute because unlike some of the aforementioned convictions, most of these people will not admit guilt. Their trials could take years to prosecute. There are endless motions to be filed and then endless apeals to be made. If the prisoners were assigned your average public defender it might not be as big a deal but these people seem to get high profile law firms with resources to burn to represent them.That's the US system of justice. Funny that you think it isn't sufficient in some cases. Very selective of you.


What numbers do you need to see. These trials will cost over 200 million to prosecute. Millitary tribunals take weeks at the most. All representation and judiciary is paid for with the millitary. A motion will get an answer in a couple of days not 7 months.I need to see the numbers that show the cost of each. You are pretending that money spent by the military doesn't count. It does.


Where do I base my numbers and facts. From practicing law in Missouri and Kansas the last several years. I have helped with a few cases in millitary court at Ft. Leavenworth and I can tell you that the differnece in the speed and expenses of a trial is night and day between millitary and civilian.Great. Give me the numbers.


Read Breyer's concurrence in Hamdan which was joined by 4 from the majority and it is not hard to imagine that it will be upheld.Hey, I'm sure the well-meaning people who created the first tribunal system thought it was bulletproof as well.


It is sufficient to do the job. Will it make mistakes? Any court does. Federal courts can screw it up just as easily as millitary. My opinion is that there is no sense in allowing jury trials and complete access to our judicial system, to people who will make a mockery of it and waste my hard earned tax dollars. They will get a fair shake in millitary court.They aren't going to make a mockery of the tribunals and waste money there? And then some will walk free after making deals.

The only reason I can think of trying these people like KSM in tribunals is that there was evidence obtained by means that would never be allowed in federal courts like torture. Since Bush fucked those cases up so horribly we might as well make up a new system where we can convict them. That's fine, but we aren't fooling anyone.

[elbamba]

The constitutionality of part or all of that act is still a big unknown. As seen in the illegal suspension of the Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States), later on turned over by the Supreme Court, it can take just as many years and can also be stalled.

Not to mention that the wording on the Act is counterproductive and already caused cases to be entirely dismissed because of it:

On June 4, 2007, in two separate cases, military tribunals dismissed charges against detainees who had been designated as "enemy combatants" but not as "unlawful enemy combatants". The first case was that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian who had been designated as an "enemy combatant" in 2004. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Colonel Peter Brownback ruled that the military tribunals, created to deal with "unlawful enemy combatants," had no jurisdiction over detainees who had been designated only as "enemy combatants." He dismissed without prejudice all charges against Khadr. Also on June 4, Captain Keith J. Allred reached the same conclusion in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

This monstrosity is probably going to be abolished and remembered just like it's cousins, the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)

I actually have no problem trying these people in military tribunals under military law (the same used to deal with spies in the Cold War era).
The problem is that military law actually grants a good amount of rights also, as it should, of due process. Things like discovery of evidence, and the accused being able to examine and defend himself against the accusations.
Obviously, guys like Dick didn't want to take any chances, and came up with the MCA.

The fairly recent 2009 amendment to the act actually works around some of those mishaps for defendants, but still falls short of the due process provided by both the standard military trials and civilian trials.

This is very interesting. The truth is that I do not follow these cases or this particular area of law that much. Thank you for your post.

I would agree with you that we could do away with the tribunal code of "law" and try them through military law. I am not about throwing out our system of justice. I just want speedy inexpensive trials. I think that the military can provide this.

[elbamba]

Nor was it around when KSM was captured, but it's good to invent new systems of justice when needed. Screw tradition and centuries of due process -- we're scared now! .

If you had read Hamdan, which I know you did not, you would know that four members who voted in the majority of that opinion, joined and supported Justice Breyer's concurrence which essentially told the president that if congress passes a bill establishing these tribunals, this would be constitutional. The Court was against going around congress.



That's the US system of justice. Funny that you think it isn't sufficient in some cases. Very selective of you.

I never trust a court because they are unpredictable. I always try to resolve a case through mediation/arbitration if possible. Most judges tell you that when you put the case in their hands, someone is going to go away pissed.

The criminal system is no better. It might be the best in the world, in my opinion, but there are mistakes and bad decisions all the time. If you think that justice is always reached at the end of a case then you have no clue how the system really works.

Its not selective, it is honesty from someone on the inside who works in courtrooms every day and who has represented his fair share of criminal defendents.



I need to see the numbers that show the cost of each. You are pretending that money spent by the military doesn't count. It does.

Great. Give me the numbers.

Do your own research. I have sat through proceedings in both courts and have seen the difference. I don't think you have. Convince me that it will cost $200 million to try an individual through the military system of justice. NY has released the numbers for the civil case.




Hey, I'm sure the well-meaning people who created the first tribunal system thought it was bulletproof as well.

They aren't going to make a mockery of the tribunals and waste money there? And then some will walk free after making deals.

The only reason I can think of trying these people like KSM in tribunals is that there was evidence obtained by means that would never be allowed in federal courts like torture. Since Bush fucked those cases up so horribly we might as well make up a new system where we can convict them. That's fine, but we aren't fooling anyone.

okay.

[Winehole23]

Do your own research. I have sat through proceedings in both courts and have seen the difference. I don't think you have. Convince me that it will cost $200 million to try an individual through the military system of justice. NY has released the numbers for the civil case.So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

[spursncowboys]

So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

What law and custom are you assuming this does not follow?

[Winehole23]

Justice Breyer's concurrence which essentially told the president that if congress passes a bill establishing these tribunals, this would be constitutional. The Court was against going around congress.In the very same decision in which they set the MCA of 2006, an act of Congress, aside at least in pars?:rollin

The way I read it it, the SC was daring Congress to pass a better law.

The MCA of 2006 didn't pass the sniff test. It's like when your teacher hands your own exam back to you and asks you to return it with corrections. Characterizing the ruling as being strictly deferential to Congress seems a bit strained to me.



The criminal system is no better. It might be the best in the world, in my opinion, but there are mistakes and bad decisions all the time. If you think that justice is always reached at the end of a case then you have no clue how the system really works. It's ours. Please don't introduce justice along any other track. Just look how bad that's been already. Imagine how much worse the mistakes in a completely ad hoc system, so dubiously and unfortunately improvised.


Do your own research. A very common refrain. I resort to it some myself. :toast

[elbamba]

So then -- putting the ethical and moral dimensions aside for a moment-- for you it is a pure matter of economic expedience, rather than of law or custom, verdad?

Yes. For the most part. Again, if you want to throw out tribunals then fine. Give them trials through the military justice system and I am fine with that. I understand that there will be problems clasifying every combatant. But it is something that can be resolved.

[elbamba]

The way I read it it, the SC was daring Congress to pass a better law.

The MCA of 2006 didn't pass the sniff test. It's like when your teacher hands your own exam back to you and asks you to return it with corrections.


If that is how you read it, so be it. I can tell you that had Roberts not had to recuse himself it would have been 5-4. The chances of the Court allowing some form of the act to go forward in the future is great.

[Winehole23]

BTW elbamba, are you cool with having a parallel system of justice that to the rest of the world looks as if it were devised to enhance the expediency of conviction?

[elbamba]

It's ours. Please don't introduce justice along any other track. Just look how bad that's been already. Imagine how much worse the mistakes in a completely ad hoc system, so dubiously and unfortunately improvised.


It is ours. And that means people will see it differently. If people could agree on the reading and function of laws there would be no need for a justice system. 200+ years of arguing over the constitution and subsequent laws supports this view.

[Winehole23]

The chances of the Court allowing some form of the act to go forward in the future is great.Given the current political trend of the SC, I have to agree with this.

[elbamba]

BTW elbamba, are you cool with having a parallel system of justice that to the rest of the world looks as if it were devised to enhance the expediency of conviction?

I do not care about the rest of the world. Many mock our endless appeal system of justice from other countries. They know they can abuse it. Then again, I can say this because no one really cares what I think.

[elbamba]

Given the current political trend of the SC, I have to agree with this.

Courts overruling previous decisions is nothing new.

[Winehole23]

Also, I would urge you consider this, in what way is it prudent or wise to have given extrajudicial power of such amplitude to the President?

For example, is it imaginable or foreseeable in your view that some future President might abuse this power in some way?

Or is your grant of bona fides to the President on this account plenary?

What happened to equality before the law?

Is the US President above all that now?

[Winehole23]

Courts overruling previous decisions is nothing new.Not at all.

[Winehole23]

Many mock our endless appeal system of justice from other countries. They know they can abuse it. The mockery got to you, eh? Maybe it got to a few others too.

They called us afraid, too effete and civilized, to abuse our own system of justice or the bad men in it.

[Winehole23]

I guess we showed them.

[Winehole23]

And apparently will again.

[Winehole23]

I do not care about the rest of the world.Too bad. They still care about us. They used to look up to us. They might still look to us for examples. Now, we've descended to their level of self-serving expediency.

We've set our old and much admired system of criminal justice to one side without very much ado. What message does that send?

[Winehole23]

Besides the not so trivial fact that we mainstreamed torture, if only briefly.

[Winehole23]

Now we have parsed it out and have developed incipient euphemisms for it.

[Winehole23]

Harsh interrogation.


Enhanced interrogation techniques.

[Nbadan]

Now we have parsed it out and have developed incipient euphemisms for it.

I wonder what they'll parse rape too? enhanced search?

[Winehole23]

What law and custom are you assuming this does not follow?The normal way we treat defendants before the law.

[Winehole23]

The way we always did, until a few years ago.

[Winehole23]

'member?

[spursncowboys]

The way we always did, until a few years ago.

I don't recall brittish, indians, rebels, and mexicans getting those.
Putting these terrorists in our criminal system treats them like regular criminals when they aren't. They are at war with us and vise versa.

[Winehole23]

But no. Instead we go Midnight Express on their asses.
http://filmfanatic.org/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/Brutality.JPG

[Winehole23]

http://www.horrorphile.net/images/midnight-express-interogation1.jpg

[Winehole23]

I don't recall brittish, indians, rebels, and mexicans getting those. What are you referring to, please? Can you be more specific ?

Were you referring to the question of access to -- Immigration court? Military courts? Federal courts? --- for certain classes of prisoners?

Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes? :toast



Putting these terrorists in our criminal system treats them like regular criminals when they aren't. They are at war with us and vise versa.If they plausibly belong to the routine course of military justice, let the routine course of military justice take them. But that isn't what we have.

What we have now is ad hoc justice on a separate track. There's a big difference. If the military must try them, at least make the process credibly fair, instead of strapping them in -- like we do now-- for a cynically expedient carnival ride that either ends in prison or indefinite detention, post verdict.

Sure. Give em a normal military trial. That'd be much better than what we do now. I might even go for that were it submitted, and criminal action against them already ruled out.

[elbamba]

Too bad. They still care about us. They used to look up to us. They might still look to us for examples. Now, we've descended to their level of immoral expediency.

We've set our old and much admired system of criminal justice to one side without very much ado. What message does that send?

WHO? What country are you so worried about? Which country has a better system of justice? If they look to us, why do they or did they not copy us. Our system of justice was based primarily on England's system of justice.

[Winehole23]

I'm not worried about another country.I'm worried about what we're becoming.

Anglo-American legal custom is the lingua franca globally speaking, is it not?

[Winehole23]

It also worries me that others countries may seek to emulate what we're doing right now with respect to whoever gets detained irregularly.

[Winehole23]

It's a very bad example.

[Winehole23]

For ourselves and for others.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why does liberty end as a concern when the military or law enforcement is involved?

[Winehole23]

Just try all the fuckers you can in federal court.

We might lose one or two. It ain't a system of justice if there's a 100% rate of conviction, and no sane person should ever desire such a high degree of success in LE.

Or so I thought. Expedience appears to be winning out over fairness on this question too.

[Winehole23]

Why does liberty end as a concern when the military or law enforcement is involved?Because expedience is king, and the public clamors for vengeance.

[elbamba]

I'm not worried about another country.I'm worried about what we're becoming.

Anglo-American legal custom is the lingua franca globally speaking, is it not?

That is fine. You referenced how others see us and I figured you had a specific country or countries in mind. I can certainly see where you're concern is with respect to what we might become.

I don't understand the latter statement.

[Winehole23]

There's a self-negating tautology at the bottom of it. The bad guys go into the process with a presumption of guilt on their heads before any hearing even takes place.

The mere fact of detention was sufficient to turn the 600 or so gitmo prisoners we have already released into terrorists at the moment of their detention, before they saw any magistrate or answered any questions.

[Winehole23]

I don't understand the latter statement.Anglo-American legal thinking is very influential. That's all.

[ChumpDumper]

If you had read Hamdan, which I know you did not, you would know that four members who voted in the majority of that opinion, joined and supported Justice Breyer's concurrence which essentially told the president that if congress passes a bill establishing these tribunals, this would be constitutional. The Court was against going around congress.No shit. the Court usually tells Congress how to fix a law they just declared unconstitutional. You're acting like this is extraordinary.


I never trust a court because they are unpredictable. I always try to resolve a case through mediation/arbitration if possible. Most judges tell you that when you put the case in their hands, someone is going to go away pissed.

The criminal system is no better. It might be the best in the world, in my opinion, but there are mistakes and bad decisions all the time. If you think that justice is always reached at the end of a case then you have no clue how the system really works.

Its not selective, it is honesty from someone on the inside who works in courtrooms every day and who has represented his fair share of criminal defendents.So do you trust the established federal justice system more than and ad hoc, made up scheme that had already failed once out of the gate?

I do.

I think there will be cases where using tribunals will be inevitable for reasons I mentioned above and all the offenses that actually occurred on battlefields, but I'd rather use it as a last resort, not as a wholesale cheap replacement of the federal system.


Do your own research. I have sat through proceedings in both courts and have seen the difference. I don't think you have. Convince me that it will cost $200 million to try an individual through the military system of justice. NY has released the numbers for the civil case.Again, if all that matters is price, just shoot every detainee now, no matter their guilt or innocence or degree of offense. That's your brand of cheap justice.

[spursncowboys]

There's a self-negating tautology at the bottom of it. The bad guys go into the process with a presumption of guilt on their heads before any hearing even takes place.

The mere fact of detention was sufficient to turn the 600 or so gitmo prisoners we have already released into terrorists at the moment of their detention, before they saw any magistrate or answered any questions.

Can you really not see the difference from criminals to opposing armies. Were the soldiers from previous wars and previous enemy armies given bail and read their "rights"?

[spursncowboys]

me
What law and custom are you assuming this does not follow?

wh
The way we always did, until a few years ago.

Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes?

[Winehole23]

@SnC:

I already said try them under UCMJ if you want. I guess that didn't make any impression on you.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you really not see the difference from criminals to opposing armies. Were the soldiers from previous wars and previous enemy armies given bail and read their "rights"?Who ever said anything about giving anyone bail?

[spursncowboys]

What are you referring to, please? Can you be more specific ?

Were you referring to the question of access to -- Immigration court? Military courts? Federal courts? --- for certain classes of prisoners?

Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes? :toast


If they plausibly belong to the routine course of military justice, let the routine course of military justice take them. But that isn't what we have.

What we have now is ad hoc justice on a separate track. There's a big difference. If the military must try them, at least make the process credibly fair, instead of strapping them in -- like we do now-- for a cynically expedient carnival ride that either ends in prison or indefinite detention, post verdict.

Sure. Give em a normal military trial. That'd be much better than what we do now. I might even go for that were it submitted, and criminal action against them already ruled out.

So when a terrorist is brought in, the military has to maintain evidence now? Does a soldier get another new job - prosecutor? Peachy.

[spursncowboys]

@SnC:

I already said try them under UCMJ if you want. I guess that didn't make any impression on you.

So the military tribunals created for this type of problem you are ok with?

[Winehole23]

Do you like to fish with just a bare hook sometimes? The whole of our legal custom and history previous to 9/11, is not just a bare hook.

[Winehole23]

So when a terrorist is brought in, the military has to maintain evidence now? I know. It's a big hassle.

[ChumpDumper]

So when a terrorist is brought in, the military has to maintain evidence now? Does a soldier get another new job - prosecutor? Peachy.What the hell are you talking about?

You know who does the prosecuting (and usually the defending) in tribunals and normal military trials, don't you?

[spursncowboys]

The whole of our legal custom and history previous to 9/11, is not just a bare hook.

What legal custom exactly. What part of history? In time of war, what other time in our history did we treat our enemy like citizens?

[spursncowboys]

I know.

No you don't.

[ChumpDumper]

No you don't.Who maintains evidence for military tribunals, SnC?

[elbamba]

just shoot every detainee now, no matter their guilt or innocence or degree of offense. That's your brand of cheap justice.

When I run for the presidency, that will be my motto.

[spursncowboys]

So keeping POW is to create justice? WTF?? This is why I don't read chump.

[ChumpDumper]

So keeping POW is to create justice? WTF?? This is why I don't read chump.It's pretty easy to tell you don't read.

Turns out you can't really post coherently either.

[ElNono]

This is very interesting. The truth is that I do not follow these cases or this particular area of law that much. Thank you for your post.

I would agree with you that we could do away with the tribunal code of "law" and try them through military law. I am not about throwing out our system of justice. I just want speedy inexpensive trials. I think that the military can provide this.

No problem. I try to keep informed about this stuff. I think it's important.

[Winehole23]

So the military tribunals created for this type of problem you are ok with?No. If we were treating them like POW's that'd be one thing, but we're not.

[Winehole23]

When I run for the presidency, that will be my motto.That would be much much cheaper than the way we do it now. I've heard the Chinese charge the families of the executed for the cost of the bullets expended.

Maybe we could just bill em back for the whole process. That way, they wouldn't cost the US taxpayer anything.

[Winehole23]

No you don't.are you suggesting military justice isn't quite up to the task?

Perhaps the federal justice system is a little more capable of sorting out the factual issues. The frequency of adverse review outcomes for cases relating to irregular detainees would seem to suggest this may be the case somewhat more than just occasionally.

[elbamba]

That would be much much cheaper than the way we do it now. I've heard the Chinese charge the families of the executed for the cost of the bullets expended.

Maybe we could just bill em back for the whole process. That way, they wouldn't cost the US taxpayer anything.

You keep giving me these slogans and ideas and pretty soon we will have President Elbama in 2012.

[Winehole23]

No charge.

[Winehole23]

How is that a fair shake?elbamba apparently chose to disregard this completely, even with the amplification supplied by ElNono.

Just come right out and say it, elbamba. What do you have to lose at this point?


We're not gonna give em a fair shake. We're not even going to pretend to. We're gonna railroad em.

[ChumpDumper]

That's what America is all about!

[Winehole23]

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf


Terrorists are arrested and convicted under existing criminal statutes. All suspected terrorists placed under arrest are provided access to legal counsel and normal judicial procedure, including Fifth Amendment guarantees.Page four.

[Obstructed_View]

Cheney shit all over himself saying the underpants bomber should have been handled differently when he was actually handled in the same manner the shoe bomber was by the Bush administration.

"Clearest thinker" :lmao

You are as full of shit as Cheney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

[ChumpDumper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006Already discussed. Thanks for not reading.

If he was an unlawful combatant, there was no need to try him at that time.

[Nbadan]

http://www.thismodernworld.com/arc/2009/TMW2009-06-03colorlowrescopy.jpg

[Nbadan]

http://www.thismodernworld.com/arc/2009/TMW2009-04-29colorlowrescopy.jpg

[Sportcamper]

It's a great day for Dick Cheney, who was released from the hospital.
Doctors say he'll be up, shooting lawyers in the face in no time.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a great day for Dick Cheney, who was released from the hospital.
Doctors say he'll be up, shooting lawyers in the face in no time.

Let's hope for number 6!

[Nbadan]

When criminals run free...

Bush: Damn Right I Ordered Torture.


George W. Bush's new memoir, and the surrounding publicity campaign, could have been designed by Barack Obama's team as a reminder of just how awful his predecessor was. First we heard about Bush's grotesquely narcissistic belief that the worst moment of his presidency was not the preventable deaths of 3,000 people in New York City or the partially avoidable death and destruction visited on New Orleans, but the fact that a hip-hop artist said something mean about him after his inept handling of the latter. Today, we find out that he did, in fact, support the arbitrary and illegal torture of suspected terrorists.

Essentially, the Republican line on arbitrary torture ordered by the executive branch has evolved from "of course we don't torture, it's wrong" to "we don't torture, but what if we did?" to "of course we tortured people!" The obfuscation is officially over. I wish I believed that twould provoke the outrage it merits, but I'm inclined to think that the pessimistic take is correct. his Because, of course, there's not enough to be depressed about this week...


Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=bush_damn_right_i_ordered_tort)

Karma chameleon....

[diego]

the US record on human rights, in war and at home, is far from perfect.
most of the detained are just foot soldiers. and though I agree with almost all winehole23 has posted, I have to raise the stakes and say that this isnt the only time the US military has abused human rights. The US military does not have the great reputation outside the US that it does inside. On top of that there is a huge prison system, some privatized, iirc the US has the most incarcerated citizens per capita, and still there is a crime problem (go drug war). This has been a big problem and huge cost for the US, and a poor example for other countries,


As far as the military angle, I think the US has basically two options to do this "right"- either detain the correct people (ie, go to saudi arabia, not iraq) and deal swift justice, or become more professional and have the moral authority to claim justice. Scenes like Abu Grhaib are medieval, they dont inspire respect for the power of justice, on the contrary they show the soldiers are there to fuck people up (again, it would help a lot to go after the right people, AND take into account collateral damage).

of those options, the first one is "cheaper", but the second one is ethically superior, and in terms of cost, it is labor intensive but considerably more effective if done correctly. This is a big divider politically, because basically here is where you say "i believe in doing the right thing no matter the cost" or "you can't make an omelette without breaking some skulls". IMO the omelette hasnt come out good enough to justify breaking those skulls, but I will grant that sometimes they just need to be broken. That decision though should be made by principle, not personal expediency.

[Yonivore]

The article is wrong on both counts.

Kanye West wasn't his "worst" moment, he called it the most disgusting [personally] because he was being accused of being a racist.

And, there are many people, scholars -- constitutional ones, at that -- that still assert the coercive techniques the administration employed never technically nor legally amounted to torture.

Litigate it if you don't like it.

[admiralsnackbar]

That decision though should be made by principle, not personal expediency.

I tend to agree, especially when studies show the remarkably high percentage of false confessions which "coercive interrogations" produce. In light of those facts, torture becomes even more deplorable and irrational as it is done despite the availability of better methods for eliciting information from suspects -- more as political theater than the preventative dirty work it is marketed as.

Are we really such cowards as to be ethically fine with torturing people whose guilt is far from certain for the miniscule possibility of intercepting actionable intel when there are demonstrably better solutions which don't undermine our political covenants, national reputation, or constitutional ideals? Or is it even an issue of cowardice as much as, as you say, "personal expediency?"

[ChumpDumper]

The article is wrong on both counts.

Kanye West wasn't his "worst" moment, he called it the most disgusting [personally] because he was being accused of being a racist.Not racist, just apathetic.


And, there are many people, scholars -- constitutional ones, at that -- that still assert the coercive techniques the administration employed never technically nor legally amounted to torture.

Litigate it if you don't like it.The US military and civilian courts have prosecuted waterboarding as a crime of torture several times in the past.

That's good enough for me.

Also, that shit didn't work at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

waterboarding "torture"? Pffffft

bunch of fucking pussies.

It's not like they were jerking their fingernails out with pliers and hooking up electrodes to their nuts...

[ChumpDumper]

waterboarding "torture"? Pffffft

bunch of fucking pussies.

It's not like they were jerking their fingernails out with pliers and hooking up electrodes to their nuts...Have you ever been waterboarded by people trying to extract information from you?

Tell us what it was like.

[boutons_deux]

So CC and other right-wing nuts support our enemies waterboarding our badass non-pussy soldiers several times/day and night for months?

[CosmicCowboy]

So CC and other right-wing nuts support our enemies waterboarding our badass non-pussy soldiers several times/day and night for months?

Last time I checked, our enemies were sawing our guys heads off while they were still alive and posting the video.

[boutons_deux]

so whatever the terrorist do, justifies whatever America does?

OBL laughing his ass off at how he's dragged America, Shining Light of Civilization, into the gutter.

[admiralsnackbar]

Talking about pussies anonymously from behind a keyboard. :lol

True grit from Mr. Marion Morrison...

[Winehole23]

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/10/04/true-grit-trailer-full.jpg

[Nbadan]

Appealing to human decency was bound to fail on wing-nuts.....were gonna lose the wars because we lost the moral authority in Iraq and Afghanistan because we tortured and murdered making the new guy worse than the old guy...

[Yonivore]

Appealing to human decency was bound to fail on wing-nuts.....were gonna lose the wars because we lost the moral authority in Iraq and Afghanistan because we tortured and murdered making the new guy worse than the old guy...
The old guy was running people through plastics shredders...alive. The old guy was delivering your loved ones to your front porch, in pieces, in plastic bags. The old guy had rape rooms and torture, REAL torture chambers. The old guy diverted OFF funds to his regime while approximately 50,000 Iraqi children died each year.

The new guy was a little harsh to the remnants of the old guy's regime.

[Yonivore]

I tend to agree, especially when studies show the remarkably high percentage of false confessions which "coercive interrogations" produce.
They weren't seeking confessions, the enhanced interrogation techniques were intended to elicit actionable intelligence.

Those involved say it did.

I'm cool with that.

[Nbadan]

The old guy was running people through plastics shredders...alive. The old guy was delivering your loved ones to your front porch, in pieces, in plastic bags. The old guy had rape rooms and torture, REAL torture chambers. The old guy diverted OFF funds to his regime while approximately 50,000 Iraqi children died each year.

The new guy was a little harsh to the remnants of the old guy's regime.

Let's see...

Rape rooms. check.
torture. check.
1,000,000+ dead Iraqi in 6 years. check
1000's of dead Iraqi Children. check

How is the new guy any better than the old guy again?

[ChumpDumper]

They weren't seeking confessions, the enhanced interrogation techniques were intended to elicit actionable intelligence.

Those involved say it did.

I'm cool with that.It takes a liar to believe a liar.

[Winehole23]

Prisoners suffered imposing disintermediation analysis.http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/22/torture.html

[DMX7]

Never before has an individual been more above the law than this Dick.

[Yonivore]

Never before has an individual been more above the law than this Dick.
Cite the specific law Vice President Cheney violated.

[Winehole23]

(locked away safely in the man-sized safe Dick Cheney showed to GWB one time...)

[admiralsnackbar]

They weren't seeking confessions, the enhanced interrogation techniques were intended to elicit actionable intelligence.

Those involved say it did.

I'm cool with that.

A confession in the present context means "actionable intelligence." I wonder... are torturers supposed to say they were wrong?

What actionable intelligence did they receive through their efforts? Did they stop the shoe bomber or another complot? Did they stop any other obvious threat to us? If you can't cite anything meaningful, why defend a program whose utility is indemonstrable?

Are you "cool" with something you cannot demonstrate because you refuse to doubt people who are in charge? If so, why don't you believe the bureaucrats that say that the health and finance reforms were unqualified successes?

[Yonivore]

A confession in the present context means "actionable intelligence." I wonder... are torturers supposed to say they were wrong?
Confession of past acts and actionable intelligence on future or on-going acts are very different. I would not support enhanced interrogation techniques to extract a confession of a past act. People are more apt to "confess" if they believe the discomfort will stop...even if it means a long prison sentence or confession to something they did not do.

In seeking "actionable intelligence" of ongoing or future acts, there's no such guarantee. If you're wrong, more than likely, you're going to be uncomfortable again, in the near future...particularly if the interrogators believe you know something and that there is something crucial to know.

Words mean something and "confession" doesn't fit anywhere in the context of this discussion.

I'd be interested to know if Obama has authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Given the recent close call and the claim there was actionable intelligence gained from a prisoner in Saudi Arabia that resulted in the "nick-of-time" discoveries, it makes me wonder. After all, from what I hear, we still have secret prisons, rendition, and Gitmo -- other "atrocities" Obama promised to end when you people voted him into office.


What actionable intelligence did they receive through their efforts? Did they stop the shoe bomber or another complot? Did they stop any other obvious threat to us? If you can't cite anything meaningful, why defend a program whose utility is indemonstrable?
George W. Bush: waterboarding saved London from attacks (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/article2800028.ece)


In his new book he writes: “Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.”


Are you "cool" with something you cannot demonstrate because you refuse to doubt people who are in charge? If so, why don't you believe the bureaucrats that say that the health and finance reforms were unqualified successes?
I'm "cool" with waterboarding terrorists.

[admiralsnackbar]

Words do mean something, and the fact that you frame them so myopically suggests you only seek to protect your pride. A confession means a disclosure of something that has remained hidden.

Is quoting the most inept president in my lifetime supposed to be a response to why you are "cool" with waterboarding terrorists? Actually, to save myself the trouble, let me just ask: do you also believe in his allegations of WMDs in Iraq?

[Yonivore]

Words do mean something, and the fact that you frame them so myopically suggests you only seek to protect your pride. A confession means a disclosure of something that has remained hidden.

Is quoting the most inept president in my lifetime supposed to be a response to why you are "cool" with waterboarding terrorists? Actually, to save myself the trouble, let me just ask: do you also believe in his allegations of WMDs in Iraq?
I'm sorry, I edited my response even further.

And, President Bush isn't the only one claiming they resulted in actionable intelligence, that's just the first quote I googled. You're dislike for Bush clouds your opinion, I think.

As for WMD's, I believed everyone, prior to March 2003, that said Saddam Hussein had WMD's -- including Bush and just about every other world leader and expert on the subject.

[admiralsnackbar]

Since you're a fan of google, try searching the phrase "efficacy of torture."

Perhaps my dislike for Bush clouds the issue. Or perhaps I just still remember the Downing St. memo and thus have ample reason to rebuke any position he publicly posed as a policy justification.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us the proportion of developed nations that supported the war compared with developing nations that both supported the war and depended on the US for support.

[TheManFromAcme]

I don't claim to be a politico nor do I hold the credentials to argue intensively with the majority of you in here but help me understand why waterboarding is such a crime especially when used against enemies of our country? I am having a difficult time comprehending this. Last time I checked CIA was an agency formed to ultimately protect the interests of the United States both foreign and domestic to include it's citizens. Knowing this, what does it matter that we use (what is being deemed as inhumane I guess...) or how we use certain tactics to extract information from enemies that mean us harm? I know I am not in "the meat" of this topic but why can't it be about supporting "whatever means necessary to protect us all".

I don't get it. If we have to strap guys to chairs and pull their toe-nails because we have evidence to prove that these guys want to blow up a school with kids and we know there are more of thier kind and the guy strapped in chair knows where the majority of these guys are and he refuses to tell us we need to be patient and try other means deemed humane? I forgot....blowing schools up with kids is humane.....forgive me.

.....I just don't understand my fellow Americans sometimes I guess.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's not that the terrorists are humane... fuck them and their cowardly methods. It's more that torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html) doesn't (http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html) work (http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=31844). If it did, I'd be much less certain in my position. That it doesn't only redoubles the fact that our engaging in it makes our guys even less safe in the battlefield while undermining the greatest asset we have against terrorists -- namely our principles.

[TheManFromAcme]

It's not that the terrorists are humane... fuck them and their cowardly methods. It's more that torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html) doesn't (http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html) work (http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=31844). If it did, I'd be much less certain in my position. That it doesn't only redoubles the fact that our engaging in it makes our guys even less safe in the battlefield while undermining the greatest asset we have against terrorists -- namely our principles.


I see your points admiral but I sometimes think about the unseen battles that are won by our CIA field agents that we as citizens will never be privy to. I mean, how do we know that many a sinister plots have been spoiled by "torture" because that is the only way we were able to infiltrate said plot?

I guess if you and I were in the intelligence business we would know.

[admiralsnackbar]

I see your points admiral but I sometimes think about the unseen battles that are won by our CIA field agents that we as citizens will never be privy to. I mean, how do we know that many a sinister plots have been spoiled by "torture" because that is the only way we were able to infiltrate said plot?

I guess if you and I were in the intelligence business we would know.

I honestly wonder about that, too -- but then you have interrogation experts from said agency writing books saying it doesn't work.

There certainly aren't enough of these experts making their opinions public to make a strong generalization of consensus tenable, but the ones that have spoken up do give accounts that dovetail nicely with data we've gathered from studies of our own public, lower-level, law-enforcement agencies, not to mention our historical understanding of the efficacy of torture as a means of extracting intel.

When I try to find information justifying our adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques," I find very little by way of fact and a great deal of rhetoric, which is at best suspicious, and at worst, morally galling.

[TheManFromAcme]

I honestly wonder about that, too -- but then you have interrogation experts from said agency writing books saying it doesn't work.

There certainly aren't enough of these experts making their opinions public to make a strong generalization of consensus tenable, but the ones that have spoken up do give accounts that dovetail nicely with data we've gathered from studies of our own public, lower-level, law-enforcement agencies, not to mention our historical understanding of the efficacy of torture as a means of extracting intel.

When I try to find information justifying our adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques," I find very little by way of fact and a great deal of rhetoric, which is at best suspicious, and at worst, morally galling.


Aren't these studies as good as the source or sources? I mean, for sake of national security would it be safe to assume that at some point people who worked in intelligence will be briefed on how "not to divulge in certain information that may compromise a pending project once your retired" be it for a memoir a interview, etc. etc.

As much as I do support the workings of the CIA I would be foolish to think it's not the shady and mysterious agency it's been known to be be it legendary or folklore.

What I would give to be invinsible and walk the halls of CIA and peek into cubicles and read a "for eyes only" folder or better yet glance at whatever is on the desk of the DOI. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

If waterboarding is so awesome, why did the US stop doing it after only waterboarding three people?

Why wasn't Saddam Hussein waterboarded during the increasingly desperate search for WMDs?

[TheManFromAcme]

Good question.

Like I said, until we have badges that gives us clearance into the halls of that certain buidling in Langley, we will probably never really know.

[RandomGuy]

I'm "cool" with waterboarding terrorists.

Perceptions matter. You might not consider it torture because that is what you have been told to believe, but most of the rest of humanity does.

One of the stated beliefs, if not THE main thesis, of the AQ ideology is that "The US is evil".

Many outside the US and out of range of Fox "news" propaganda, find this idea credible.

The more credible this idea, the more money, people, and resources flow their way, or to groups with similar agendas, all holding that common idea, i.e. the US is evil.

How does torture fight the idea that the US is evil?

[RandomGuy]

The obvious answer to that question to anybody with a modicum of common sense is:
"Torture does not fight the idea that the USA is evil, it contributes to that idea's credibility."

Yoni is patently incapable of being honest enough to admit this, because he is, quite frankly, a partisan hack, with no interest in honesty that I have been able to discern.

That should speak volumes about the things he advocates.

[ChumpDumper]

Good question.

Like I said, until we have badges that gives us clearance into the halls of that certain buidling in Langley, we will probably never really know.My takeaway is that waterboarding was an aberration that will not be tried again. If it was that effective and harmless and arguably legal in some deluded minds, there would be no reason not to waterboard basically every person from which you wish to gather "actionable intelligence."

[TheManFromAcme]

My takeaway is that waterboarding was an aberration that will not be tried again. If it was that effective and harmless and arguably legal in some deluded minds, there would be no reason not to waterboard basically every person from which you wish to gather "actionable intelligence."


fair enough

[Nbadan]

I feel like we are all ignoring the elephant in the room...the 'alleged' torture and rape photos that have not yet been released.....although many have seen them..

[Nbadan]

First court convicts Cheney and Dubya of war crimes.....more to come...

[Vici]

?

[ChumpDumper]

First court convicts Cheney and Dubya of war crimes.....more to come...Where was this court?

Who commissioned it?

What jurisdiction do they have?

Let us know.

[Nbadan]

Malaysia,but If this goes to the ICC ....George W. Bush could someday be the first International war criminal in chief ....proud day for America....

niffty..


George W. Bush and Tony Blair were both found guilty of War Crimes, in a Malaysian War Crimes Tribunal. The Kuala Lampur War Crimes Tribunal, as reported here by Ottawacitizen.com, issued a statement in which they said…’The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George Bush and second accused Blair have been found guilty of crimes against peace”

This comes after two years of investigation in which it was found… “The evidence showed that the drums of wars were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their own intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law”

The war crimes tribunal was initiated by Former Malaysian Premier Mahathir Mohamad, who is a fierce critic of the Iraq War. The hearings took place over a period of four days and the guilty decision was a unanimous one. The seven member panel chaired was by former Malaysian Court Judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman. The panel also consisted of five judges who have Academic backgrounds. The prosecution team was headed by two prominent legal personalities with strong professional legal credentials: Gurdeal Singh Nijar and Francis Boyle.

Bush’s and Blair’s names should now be entered in a register for war criminals. The Tribunal will also pursue their being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Kuala Lampur Tribunal is being hailed in many quarters as being a champion for the cause by it’s great courage in standing up to powerful Western interests who have downplayed the crimes of Bush and Blair by not prosecuting them in their respective countries.

[ChumpDumper]

So:

Where was this court? Malaysia

Who commissioned it? Some Malaysian dude with an axe to grind.

What jurisdiction do they have? None.

[Nbadan]

If I was George Bush would I leave the country? NO

Would it be legal for Malaysia to hire mercenaries to go after a war criminal? why not


Will Bush and Cheney someday be found guilty of crimes against humanity? for the sake of our country lets hope so....

Is Chumpy underplaying the significance of this case? that's what Chumpy does

[ChumpDumper]

If I was George Bush would I leave the country? Sure. Why not?

Would it be legal for Malaysia to hire mercenaries to go after a war criminal? What does the actual present government of Malaysia have to do with this?


Will Bush and Cheney someday be found guilty of crimes against humanity? No.

Is Chumpy underplaying the significance of this case? Impossible.

[Nbadan]

Hey, doesn't cheney have a pace-maker....how long can a Darth Cheney live with a pace-maker...he has to be robbing healthy hearts from chinese kids or something...

[Wild Cobra]

So:

Where was this court? Malaysia

Who commissioned it? Some Malaysian dude with an axe to grind.

What jurisdiction do they have? None.
True, but libtard bushwhackers love it.

[Nbadan]

Ha...it's momentum..



Reuters reports that Amnesty International has called for the arrest of George W. Bush during his visit to Africa later this month. The international civil rights group is claiming that the former President is guilty of human rights abuses for his authorization of the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques in his “War on Terror.”

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/01/amnesty-interna...