Reply With Quote
You're right, the statute says, "prolonged mental harm." Big whoop.It doesn't appear in the Code at all.
More sloppy lawyering.
Thanks, yoni!
Now, care to address the elements of her argument or are you just going to go on picking nits?
It doesn't appear in the Code at all.What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.
More sloppy lawyering.
Thanks, yoni!
You're right, the statute says, "prolonged mental harm." Big whoop.It doesn't appear in the Code at all.
More sloppy lawyering.
Thanks, yoni!
Now, care to address the elements of her argument or are you just going to go on picking nits?
No need. I proved incompetence once more -- her attempt to connect arguments completely falls apart once you get past her deliberate misquoting of statute.
Lawyers really get fired for things like this.
Okay, well, thanks for the enlightenment. You'll, of course, go on -- as you have for the past 8 years -- and convince yourself crimes have been committed here while, the rest of the world, sensible Democrats included, will realize they've been lied to by Pelosi and crowd about "torture," and move on.
Have fun being a part of the Nbadan, Galileo tin-foil hat club.
No problem. You are a fantastically ignorant person, so it's easy to provide you with information of which you have no knowledge.Nah. You'll and your incompetent lawyer friends will keep avoiding a century's worth of case law that has established waterboarding as torture, no matter what the status of the detainee being waterboarded. Any newer statue would have to specifically allow waterboarding to make your laughable theory work.You'll, of course, go on -- as you have for the past 8 years -- and convince yourself crimes have been committed here while, the rest of the world, sensible Democrats included, will realize they've been lied to by Pelosi and crowd about "torture," and move on.
Seriously, yoni -- why do you and they pretend the legal system has never dealt with waterboarding before? Answer that question.
Come up with a theory for the Air Force One New York flyover yet?
You're already a member, dumbass.
Let's revisit this in a year.
No one will be any closer to being prosecuted for the enhanced interrogation techniques.
I don't pretend that. The Senate rejected a law that would have specifically made waterboarding illegal. Why?
Did the U. S. Congress remove language, when formulating their own statute on "torture", that would provide a legitimate defense to prosecution?
Is "Torture" a "specific intent" law and one that has very specific elements that have to be met?
Isn't, in fact, your argument overly broad to the point that it considers none of the prosecutorial hurdles that would have to be overcome by the courts to find anyone guilty of violating 18 USC 2340?
Why do you pretend the legal question is so definitively in the favor of your argument? It's not.
You've completely ignored the fundamental basis of the arguments made over your nit picking games. "harm" and "suffering" imply the same thing in the context of the word "prolonged." In other words, the argument was that the enhanced interrogation techniques used (including, the ones researched by DOJ for the purpose of advising the CIA and AG), do not have any lasting harmful effects.
This is proven on the most controversial of these, waterboarding, by simply pointing out that we subject our military trainees to the exact same procedure and, that if there were any danger in "prolonged mental suffering" or "prolonged mental harm," we wouldn't be doing it.
And, as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, the best argument you could make is that terrorists would suffer from the long term guilt of having divulged information that foiled their own plans to kill Americans or that resulted in the death or capture of fellow terrorists.
A result I can live with.
Seriously, if you don't want to argue these element but, instead, want to continue nit picking words and making ad hominem attacks on those whose opinions I choose to bring to the argument. Go on...I'm done.
Have a nice ignorance...
All I've said is the mission has yet to be explained to my satisfaction. I offered no theories.
I never said they would. It's a sticky legal situation that has really yet to be tested in its present form. Once the entire legal history of waterboarding is surveyed, however, I think you and your lying friends might be on the losing side of the argument. I could be wrong -- but your and their absolute terror at the thought of even looking into the case history makes me think I'm right.
You absolutely do.I don't pretend that.
Not really.Did the U. S. Congress remove language, when formulating their own statute on "torture", that would provide a legitimate defense to prosecution?
You really need to move away from your "one statute" theory of law. You are pretending a century of case law doesn't exist once again.Is "Torture" a "specific intent" law and one that has very specific elements that have to be met?
No, my argument is pretty solid.Isn't, in fact, your argument overly broad to the point that it considers none of the prosecutorial hurdles that would have to be overcome by the courts to find anyone guilty of violating 18 USC 2340?
My argument actually acknowledges legal precedent concerning waterboarding. Does yours?Why do you pretend the legal question is so definitively in the favor of your argument? It's not.
No.
That's why mine is better.
Your incompetent lawyer friend deliberately misquoted the US Code to connect legal arguments. Once the word is corrected, her convoluted argument goes to .You've completely ignored the fundamental basis of the arguments made over your nit picking games. "harm" and "suffering" imply the same thing in the context of the word "prolonged." In other words, the argument was that the enhanced interrogation techniques used (including, the ones researched by DOJ for the purpose of advising the CIA and AG), do not have any lasting harmful effects.
And still doesn't recognize legal precedent.
Are you still trying to say trainees are detainees. You got statute shoved straight up your ass on that one. You've got to be running out of room with your head up there too all the time.This is proven on the most controversial of these, waterboarding, by simply pointing out that we subject our military trainees to the exact same procedure and, that if there were any danger in "prolonged mental suffering" or "prolonged mental harm," we wouldn't be doing it.
Another incompetent argument.And, as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, the best argument you could make is that terrorists would suffer from the long term guilt of having divulged information that foiled their own plans to kill Americans or that resulted in the death or capture of fellow terrorists.
Hey, you live with your own lying and stealing too -- that doesn't make it right.A result I can live with.
Sorry you don't realize dreary precision is the hallmark of legal research. Intentionally misquoting written statute and ignoring 800 years of common law is really, really bad.Seriously, if you don't want to argue these element but, instead, want to continue nit picking words and making ad hominem attacks on those whose opinions I choose to bring to the argument. Go on...I'm done.
Dishonest.
Evil.
But you can live with that.
You are evil.
Enjoy your lying and stealing and evil.Have a nice ignorance...
What a lil drama queen. Are you gay? If the answer is yes, I promise not to ever ever say anything about ur preference in sex partners. If you ur answer is "no" I won't believe you. If you don't care to answer that, I won't mention it again. If you want to comeback with a question for me instead of a answer, I will not answer it. If you comeback and call me a name, well that's just you.
^^^Obsessed with teh gheys. It's getting old Jack.
Magnanimity...from ChumpDumper.
No, I don't.
Was a bill that outlawed waterboarding presented in the Senate in 2006? The answer is, yes. Did the Bill pass out of the Senate? The answer is, no.
Case law only speaks to the matter once the matter is being tried. You have to have a statute under which to indict, first. And, you've yet to provide me with that statute. No, I've always assumed it was 18 USC 2340 (particularly since you threw out le 18 earlier in the conversation -- the U. S. Code covering all criminality) but, none-the-less, we disagree over whether or not 18 USC 2340 is relevant, or not -- FOR PROSECUTION.
The government never states in a criminal indictment that a defendant has violated a statute because some prior case law says they did. No, they indict under a specific statute and try the case. If, during trial, the want to bolster a legal argument by citing case law, they do.
You've yet to show me how U. S. v. Parker (much less all the other supposed case law you've bantered about) is relevant to this specific case. First, of all, you can't. Neither you nor I have the requisite information to bring to bear. This is a national security matter and, necessarily, a lot of the facts are unknown.
In your head, maybe. But, are a whole lot of people out there -- I've quoted a few -- who reasonably disagree with you...and, make pretty solid arguments to the contrary.
Citing a case that involved, as an element, waterboarding, doesn't make the argument relevant. You've yet to show how it is connected to the enhanced interrogation techniques beyond the fact there was water involved. I'm willing to bet there are a mul ude of cases in which people were tortured -- some of which using water. Why did you not cite those as well?
You don't know that is was deliberate. If you were Lawrence Tribe, you'd have some weight in this argument but, you're not. You're an idiot that likes to hand out in this forum and pretend he knows stuff.
Actually, both memos discuss relevant case law in reaching the analysis offered the CIA and AG.
Trainees and detainees are treated identically. If waterboarding -- as applied -- were torture, we wouldn't be doing it to our trainees.
Now, if you want to argue the waterboarding done to SERE trainees is different than that performed on detainees, you have a valid arguement but, if I'm not mistaken, an element to this is that the CIA and DOJ were advised that so long as the procedure were no different, it's not torture.
That implies waterboarding could be taken beyond a point at which it becomes torture. So, then, you have the added burden of proving it was. That the three detainees, against with the procedure was used are alive and well kind of blows a hole in that argument.
And, you've provided such illuminating detail.
I think this argument has merit. Seriously, if the only harm you can proved is that terrorists are upset over having divulged secrets that led to the disruption of terror plot or the capture or death of their cohorts, is that really worth getting upset over?
I don't think so.
What "prolonged mental harm" are you alleging occurred to these people? That is, after all, an element of the crime which you've not addressed.
Your whole argument seems to boil down to, "waterboarding = torture." That's it.
That's an incompetent argument.
You haven't demonstrated the enhanced interrogation techniques are wrong or that they have violated any statute or treaty.
Well, in that respect, you've failed more miserably than anyone I've quoted in here.
You just kind of vomit stuff onto the board and expect everyone to take it as gospel. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the "water torture" of U. S. v. Parker is related to the enhanced interrogation techniques used against the detainees.
Because, if you buy the "specific intent" argument that's been made by at least two of the scholars, I've quoted -- and also referred to in the Bybee and/or Yoo memos, then you'd recognize the "specific intent" of coercing an individual in a U. S. criminal case is specifically a crime whereas, the "specific intent" of extracting actionable intelligence from a detainee is no more a crime than the "specific intent" of training SERE trainees.
The enhanced interrogation techniques weren't used to punish the detainees and they weren't used to extract information that would be used against them at any trial. In fact, President Obama has ensured that by fundamental changes to the Military Commissions Act. I don't think anyone is concerned with it either...I know I'm not.
There is already enough information on the three in custody to convict them of any crime over which they'd be tried without including the actionable intelligence extracted using the EITs.
Once again, you draw conclusions over too little information. I'm not surprised.
Sorry Winehole.
Go away with yourself. You're not sorry one bit.
Take it back.
Yeah, Ur right again. I will take ur advice and go away. Good night.
Another lie!
Anyway, get back to me when you and your chums aren't afraid of dealing with precedent.
You are very interested in me and my sexuality.
Too bad folks have already been prosecuted and punished for the specific intent of extracting actionable intel.
And those who were waterboarded just happened to be what would be classified today as unlawful combatants.
It's a shame you are so terrified of realizing that this has all been done before. It is amazing how little of this you understand.
It did. Ad extirpanda.I'm not sure whether the Spanish Inquisition had a torture statute
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...entice/8838/2/The Inquisition, with its stipulation that torture and interrogation not jeopardize life or cause irreparable harm, actually set a more rigorous standard than some proponents of torture insist on now. The 21st century’s Ad extirpanda is the so-called Bybee memo, issued by the Justice Department in 2002 (and later revised). In it, the Bush administration put forth a very narrow definition, arguing that for an action to be deemed torture, it must produce suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” To place this in perspective: the administration’s threshold for when an act of torture begins was the point at which the Inquisition stipulated that it must stop.
Another blast from the past. Yoni really tried to wear his ignorance as armor on this one.
The Inquisition, with its stipulation that torture and interrogation not jeopardize life or cause irreparable harm, actually set a more rigorous standard than some proponents of torture insist on now. The 21st century’s Ad extirpanda is the so-called Bybee memo, issued by the Justice Department in 2002 (and later revised). In it, the Bush administration put forth a very narrow definition, arguing that for an action to be deemed torture, it must produce suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” To place this in perspective: the administration’s threshold for when an act of torture begins was the point at which the Inquisition stipulated that it must stop.
You actually believe the Spanish Inquisition didn't jeopardize life or cause irreparable harm?
http://www.medievality.com/torture.html
no, but I do believe they had a rule against it and that inquisitors took it seriously enough to come up with interpretations of the rules consonant with breaking those rules.
there's prose to that effect @ the link, if you care to read it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
