FBI Interrogator: Torture is counterproductive

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, the torture statutes and treaties are on the books -- quite well known in fact.

Were they not, there would not have been successful prosecutions against Americans and foreigners by Americans over the past century.

That's the way the statutes have been interpreted using the common law system. There is a significant case history supporting the conclusion that waterboarding as torture. What you have to do as a lawyer ( at the thought) is show why that century of case history somehow doesn't apply to the current detainees. Bybee and Yoo and you have utterly failed to do so.

[Yonivore]

Oh, the torture statutes and treaties are on the books -- quite well known in fact.

Then, specifically what torture statute or treaty has been violated?

Were they not, there would not have been successful prosecutions against Americans and foreigners by Americans over the past century.

Prosecutions in what courts, under what jurisdiction, and pursuant to what specific statutes?

Are you suggesting we should just find a court somewhere in the world that has the appropriate laws under which to try our citizens? America doesn't have a statute that says they violated an American law but, let's find some place that does and send our citizens to them just so we can get them tried.

I think Spain currently claims universal jurisdiction over all sorts of crimes committed anywhere in the world. Maybe we could send them there.

It's like you've found some criminals and now, you're in search of a law they've broken.

That's the way the statutes have been interpreted using the common law system. There is a significant case history supporting the conclusion that waterboarding as torture.

What statutes have been interpreted that way?

Also, you have to demonstrate the enhanced interrogation techniques -- particularly waterboarding -- are identical to the other forms of torture (whether by the same name or not) and, as yet, that's not conclusive.

What you have to do as a lawyer ( at the thought) is show why that century of case history somehow doesn't apply to the current detainees. Bybee and Yoo and you have utterly failed to do so.

What you have to do as a government in the United States of America wanting to put an American citizen on criminal trial is to state, in a indictment, the specific American statutes that were violated by the defendant.

If there are not statutes, in American criminal law, then you've got to find some other avenue to punish them. I don't see this government surrendering its own citizens over to another jurisdiction for trial.

Again, what law was broken?

[Winehole23]

[ChumpDumper]

Prosecutions in what courts, under what jurisdiction, and pursuant to what specific statutes?

Federal and military courts, pusrsuant statutes that existed and were never successfully challenged. I could easily see something from le 18 of the US Code being used, among others.

Are you suggesting we should just find a court somewhere in the world that has the appropriate laws under which to try our citizens? America doesn't have a statute that says they violated an American law but, let's find some place that does and send our citizens to them just so we can get them tried.

I think Spain currently claims universal jurisdiction over all sorts of crimes committed anywhere in the world. Maybe we could send them there.

It's like you've found some criminals and now, you're in search of a law they've broken.

Damn, you've got to be running low on straw after that one. No need to go outside the US -- there have been several successful prosecutions here. Why do you pretend there haven't?

What statutes have been interpreted that way?

If you are that interested, please look up all the cases you demanded earlier and never did anything with.

Also, you have to demonstrate the enhanced interrogation techniques -- particularly waterboarding -- are identical to the other forms of torture (whether by the same name or not) and, as yet, that's not conclusive.

Actually, you (Yoo) are the one who has to prove it is different.

What you have to do as a government in the United States of America wanting to put an American citizen on criminal trial is to state, in a indictment, the specific American statutes that were violated by the defendant.

If there are not statutes, in American criminal law, then you've got to find some other avenue to punish them. I don't see this government surrendering its own citizens over to another jurisdiction for trial.

Again, what law was broken?

Again, there have been successful prosecutions in federal and military courts regarding waterboarding using existing statutes. It is your burden to explain why they do not apply.

[Yonivore]

Federal and military courts, pusrsuant statutes that existed and were never successfully challenged. I could easily see something from le 18 of the US Code being used, among others.

Really, cite a provision of le 18 that applies. C'mon Mr. Prosecutor. Under what U. S. statute are you going to try these people?

Damn, you've got to be running low on straw after that one. No need to go outside the US -- there have been several successful prosecutions here. Why do you pretend there haven't?

Those prosecutions you cited were for violating a criminal statute and the sheriff's deputies were charged under those statutes. Federal civil rights violations if I'm not mistaken. And, given the cir stances of these interrogations, I think you'd be hard pressed to apply them here.

If you are that interested, please look up all the cases you demanded earlier and never did anything with.

Actually, I'm not. I don't think any laws were broken. If you want to prove me wrong, it's going to be you that comes up with the specific statute they violated.

Actually, you (Yoo) are the one who has to prove it is different.

Actually, they don't. It doesn't appear there is going to be any civil or criminal action taken against either Yoo or Bybee.

Again, there have been successful prosecutions in federal and military courts regarding waterboarding using existing statutes.

What are the statutes?

It is your burden to explain why they do not apply.

No, it's not. Waterboarding isn't a crime, just like shooting someone isn't a crime. Now, waterboarding may be an element of a crime (as you so ably demonstrated with your U. S. v Parker and U. S. v. Lee cites), just like shooting someone may the an element of a crime (i.e. murder, assault, manslaughter, etc...) but, in and of itself, it isn't a crime.

And, as best as I can determine, nor is it considered torture in the context in which it was used by our government in the 2002 to 2005 time frame. Unless you can show me some statute -- and it would have to be a federal statute since the incidents did not occur in any U. S. State. -- I'm calling no crime here.

[Winehole23]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...1----000-.html

[ChumpDumper]

Really, cite a provision of le 18 that applies. C'mon Mr. Prosecutor. Under what U. S. statute are you going to try these people?

I gave you the le to see if you would actually look. You didn't.

Hilarious.

Those prosecutions you cited were for violating a criminal statute and the sheriff's deputies were charged under those statutes. Federal civil rights violations if I'm not mistaken. And, given the cir stances of these interrogations, I think you'd be hard pressed to apply them here.

Well, one would have to actually say why the decisions reached in that case regarding torture do not apply to the torture statutes if nothing else.

Actually, I'm not. I don't think any laws were broken. If you want to prove me wrong, it's going to be you that comes up with the specific statute they violated.

It's in there. You didn't look.

Actually, they don't. It doesn't appear there is going to be any civil or criminal action taken against either Yoo or Bybee.

They didn't torture anyone. They just wrote really horrible legal opinions.

What are the statutes?

You pretend that statutes don't exist because you are ignorant of them.

It's funny.

I told you where they were, and you didn't look and demanded to know where they were.

No, it's not. Waterboarding isn't a crime, just like shooting someone isn't a crime.

I guess you are going to argue that the CIA personnel were actually trying to waterboard a quail and just accidentally waterboarded detainees.

[Yonivore]

I gave you the le to see if you would actually look. You didn't.

Hilarious.

Sorry, not doing to law research for you. If you say they violated le 18, show me.

You are indeed mistaken.

So, with what were they charged?

It's in there. You didn't look.

Nope, I didn't

They didn't torture anyone. They just wrote really horrible legal opinions.

That's your characterization and that doesn't rise to the level of a crime, even if you're correct.

You pretend that statutes don't exist because you are ignorant of them.

It's funny.

I told you where they were, and you didn't look and demanded to know where they were.

If there is a specific cite, I'll read it. Directing me to an whole le of the U. S. code isn't very specific.

I guess you are going to argue that the CIA personnel were actually trying to waterboard a quail and just accidentally waterboarded detainees.

Great how you had to take that out of context to make yourself laugh.

Find me a statute that says waterboarding is a crime.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, not doing to law research for you. If you say they violated le 18, show me.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

Nope, I didn't

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

That's your characterization and that doesn't rise to the level of a crime, even if you're correct.

When did I say they committed a crime?

Please provide a link.

If there is a specific cite, I'll read it. Directing me to an whole le of the U. S. code isn't very specific.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

Find me a statute that says waterboarding is a crime.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You'll have to trust that they exist.

There is a federal torture statute.

A federal judge said waterboarding meets the statuary definition of torture, calling it torture -- 12 times in one case.

[Winehole23]

In the face of clear and repeated evidence, all Yoni has left is bald denial. He won't ever budge from it, even if people are charged and convicted.

[Yonivore]

In the face of clear and repeated evidence,

Evidence of what?

all Yoni has left is bald denial.

They waterboarded three terrorists, I'm denying nothing.

He won't ever budge from it, even if people are charged

With what?

and convicted.

Of what?

[Yonivore]

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


When did I say they committed a crime?

Please provide a link.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You'll have to trust that they exist.

There is a federal torture statute.

A federal judge said waterboarding meets the statuary definition of torture, calling it torture -- 12 times in one case.

Okay, then. I guess I win the argument. I say there are no statutes that say waterboarding is a crime. You say there are.

You won't produce them.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, then. I guess I win the argument. I say there are no statutes that say waterboarding is a crime. You say there are.

You won't produce them.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You don't know how the law works in this country. You refuse to acknowledge 800 years of common law and over 100 years of case law regarding the specific practice of waterboarding.

You don't think laws against torture exist.

You don't think waterboarding has ever been legally defined in a court of law.

You don't think anyone has ever been tried or punished for waterboarding.

Your only defense of waterboarding is denial.

I guess I win the argument by default, because you can't even argue.

[Yonivore]

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You don't know how the law works in this country. You refuse to acknowledge 800 years of common law and over 100 years of case law regarding the specific practice of waterboarding.

You don't think laws against torture exist.

You don't think waterboarding has ever been legally defined in a court of law.

You don't think anyone has ever been tried or punished for waterboarding.

Your only defense of waterboarding is denial.

I guess I win the argument by default, because you can't even argue.

Maybe you win in bizarro world. You're the one claiming a law was broken...not me.

I haven't even seen anywhere in any of the media where anyone has been accused of a specific crime.

Yes, they waterboarded terrorists to extract information.

You (and a bunch of people who hate the Bush administration) say that's a crime. I (and a bunch of others) say it isn't.

I can't prove a negative so it falls to you to prove the affirmative.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you win in bizarro world. You're the one claiming a law was broken...not me.

I haven't even seen anywhere in any of the media where anyone has been accused of a specific crime.

Yes, they waterboarded terrorists to extract information.

You (and a bunch of people who hate the Bush administration) say that's a crime. I (and a bunch of others) say it isn't.

I can't prove a negative so it falls to you to prove the affirmative.

Your attempt to wear ignorance as armor is laughable.

You were already shown the specific cases where defendants were successfully prosecuted and punished for waterboarding -- the waterboarding victims were quite varied -- US citizens, US soldiers, foreign citizens and foreign insurgents.

Your response -- they didn't happen because you don't know about them.

You didn't like the answer you were given so you pretended you never got one.

Now that you have been shown all this case law exists, that waterboarding has indeed been declared to be torture numberous times by military and civilian courts, the burden has fallen back on you to back up your claim that no crime has been committed.

Your defense -- "Well, it just isn't because the blogs I plagiarize told me to think that way!"

[Yonivore]

Your attempt to wear ignorance as armor is laughable.

You were already shown the specific cases where defendants were successfully prosecuted and punished for waterboarding -- the waterboarding victims were quite varied -- US citizens, US soldiers, foreign citizens and foreign insurgents.

The charge was waterboarding?

Your response -- they didn't happen because you don't know about them.

I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that none of these people were charged with the crime of waterboarding.

You didn't like the answer you were given so you pretended you never got one.

You've yet to show me where waterboarding is a crime. You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.

Now that you have been shown all this case law exists, that waterboarding has indeed been declared to be torture numberous times by military and civilian courts, the burden has fallen back on you to back up your claim that no crime has been committed.

Your defense -- "Well, it just isn't because the blogs I plagiarize told me to think that way!"

No, you've yet to state what crime you believe was violated. Waterboarding isn't a crime.

[Winehole23]

Evidence of what?

Laws against torture.

They waterboarded three terrorists, I'm denying nothing.

You deny this is a crime.

With what?

Under le 18 or Geneva, or any other relevant statute.

Of what?

That's for prosecutors to decide, not me. Waterboarding is pretty clearly torture. Many of the EIT's, as applied, may have been.

[ChumpDumper]

The charge was waterboarding?

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that none of these people were charged with the crime of waterboarding.

No, I deliberately showed cases where the practice of waterboarding was successfully prosecuted using existing statutes and legal definitions.

You've yet to show me where waterboarding is a crime. You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.

I'm sure you don't realize what you posted here.

No, you've yet to state what crime you believe was violated. Waterboarding isn't a crime.

Sure it is -- that's already been proved. You simply are too stupid to understand what has already been done several times over.

[Yonivore]

Laws against torture.

First, you have to prove it was torture.

You deny this is a crime.

Yes, I do.

Under le 18 or Geneva, or any other relevant statute.

Yes.

That's for prosecutors to decide, not me. Waterboarding is pretty clearly torture. Many of the EIT's, as applied, may have been.

Well, I don't think you're going to get your wish of ever having this prosecuted so, we're just going to have to imagine what a prosecutor would decide.

And, waterboarding isn't clearly torture. Maybe in your mind but, not mine...and, obviously, not in the legal opinion of the Bush Justice Department.

[ChumpDumper]

And, waterboarding isn't clearly torture. Maybe in your mind but, not mine...and, obviously, not in the legal opinion of the Bush Justice Department.

And upon what are those opinions based?

[Yonivore]

Sure it is -- that's already been proved. You simply are too stupid to understand what has already been done several times over.

Where is the statute that specifically says waterboarding is a crime.

[Yonivore]

And upon what are those opinions based?

An analysis of the law.

[ChumpDumper]

An analysis of the law.

Which laws?

[ChumpDumper]

Where is the statute that specifically says waterboarding is a crime.

Where is the statute that specifically says ripping out fingernails is a crime?

[Yonivore]

Where is the statute that specifically says ripping out fingernails is a crime?

That's not a crime either.