And this does not concern you in the least?
The most basic legal research was not performed by attorneys at the highest levels of government concerning the very real issue of torture and you think that's just great?
You are so eager to do this now -- why would you not want it done then?
Nope, that over 600 memos exist that exhaustively treat the question tells me the administration did due diligence in arriving at the program they employeed. Without access to all the memos, there's no way to know exactly what was considered.
You don't know that. I believe they exhausted every legal argument before arriving at their conclusions.
Let's see the cites Perry Mason. You claim there is case law...throw it out here.
So now your claim is "they're still translating the do ents."
That worked for you so well before.
Nope, I believe Vice President Cheney has asked Obama to release them...it's Obama that's holding up this train.
Why don't you join me and Mr. Cheney in demanding President Obama to release the remaining 596 memos regarding the CIA enhanced interrogation program.
Here's what an actual lawyer who bothered to look things up says about the past waterboarding cases.
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
ad_icon
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they cons uted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law
of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201170.html
So now you want to jeopardize national security.
You really do hate America!
Too late for that thanks to our President.
In your world, apparently.
What specific part of the released memos endangered national security?
The descriptions of exactly how far we will go. And, it's not just the memos, it's the entire discussion over our enhanced interrogation techniques. What possibly could further release of the rest of the memos reveal that hasn't already?
Oh, wait! Let me answer that...
Further release will reveal a) the enhanced techniques were perfectly legal and b) they resulted in valuable and actionable intelligence that prevented more Americans from become victims of al Qaeda.
You know, Chumpy, if you haven't already - find that video I posted of Vice President Cheney's daughter (a former State Department appointee) explaining what further revelation will tell us.
It's very instructional...
What it will show is exactly how much work went into determining the techniques limits before they would be considered a crime.
It's funny to watch Norah O'Donnell (an absolute hottie, BTW) try to turn those words around on Ms. Cheney and be taken to school...
Face it, President Obama is cherry-picking the memos, releasing those that, without the support of the others, appear damning but -- to what end? What did the release of those memos accomplish.
And, there you have it.
It is.
She lied less than ten seconds into it, so I didn't need to hear any more.
Yeah, there you have it -- he completely and intentionally ignored case law and tried to twist the most recent statute without acknowledging the legal history that formed the underpinning of that most recent statute.
On the face of it, a gullible idiot would fall for that kind of a statement.
You are just that kind of person.
He is counting on your ignorance and bias.
You did not disappoint him.
What was the "lie" that closed your mind?
You've read all the do ents leading to the decision? How do you know what was considered or what was ignored?
Yeah, there you have it -- he completely and intentionally ignored case law and tried to twist the most recent statute without acknowledging the legal history that formed the underpinning of that most recent statute.
On the face of it, a gullible idiot would fall for that kind of a statement.
You are just that kind of person.
He is counting on your ignorance and bias.
You did not disappoint him.
And, for the fifth or sixth time...cite a case.
The torture was authorized well before the legal excuse was produced by the legal team.
Are you kidding?
You can't even find a case from the articles I've posted.
You're an idiot.
A colossal idiot.
Can you even breathe on your own, or do you need powerlineblog to tell you when?
So, you can't cite a case? Cool.
United States of America v. Parker, et.al. is the most recent.
The Reagan administration prosecuted and convicted Americans for waterboarding.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-02-2009 at 01:55 AM. Reason: fixed case title
Well, the legend, according to the first few google returns (from liberal bloggers) is a few Texas Sheriff's deputies were tried for "waterboarding" in U. S. vs. Parker but, I can't find much detail on the case except from what google reveals in liberal blogs. I'll keep reading but, keep in mind, coersion, of any kind, in a criminal case is illegal.
I did find another blogger who may be an attorney, couldn't tell, he ran it alll through Lexis/Nexus (whatever that is) and found 14 U.S. vs. Parker -- none of which were in 1983. Then, he looked for San Jacinto County Sheriff's Office, another 17 unrelated hits...and then, he looked for Floyd Allen Baker (I'm assuming this is a name involved in the case) and only turned up 2 unrelated cases out of Iowa.
Can you be more detailed or point me to some court do entation related to United States vs. Parker? That'd be great, thanks.
Also, I'm not sure of any "waterboarding" statutes on the books in Texas. They were probably tried by the feds (if the case is real) for violating the prisoner's cons utional rights by coersing him to confess -- not for waterboarding. The waterboarding was just the means of coersion.
In any case, I don't think your United States vs. Parker is relevant to alien enemy combatants from whom actionable intelligence is being extracted.
Did you have any other cases? And, in the meantime, I'll read up on what your liberal bloggers say about U.S. vs. Parker. Thanks for the tip.
Shut the up.
Had this not happened, one of your blog gods would have already said so.
It characterized waterboarding as torture 12 times.Also, I'm not sure of any "waterboarding" statutes on the books in Texas. They were probably tried by the feds (if the case is real) for violating the prisoner's cons utional rights by coersing him to confess -- not for waterboarding. The waterboarding was just the means of coersion.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld basically rapes you on that one.In any case, I don't think your United States vs. Parker is relevant to alien enemy combatants from whom actionable intelligence is being extracted.
Thanks for admitting you never read anything anyone has posted or linked here.Did you have any other cases? And, in the meantime, I'll read up on what your liberal bloggers say about U.S. vs. Parker. Thanks for the tip.
While you are trying unsuccessfully to argue what is or isn't relevant, please find the source for John Yoo's definition of torture's being:
“equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
If you actually look for it, let us all know his source and explain its relevance.
But we all know you won't -- or if you do you will lie about not being able to find it. It will be that embarrassing to you.
I guess I need to paste this here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Section 1 covers the beginning of captivity (Articles 17–20). It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may not use "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". It dictates what private property a prisoner of war may keep and that the prisoner of war must be evacuated from the combat zone as soon as possible.
Well, the Houston Chronicle only has online archives back to 1985, but here's an excerpt from a story regarding the related civil suit brought by the victims:
Parker was convicted in 1983 of violating prisoners' civil rights through water torture and given a 10-year sentence. In 1984, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to deprive motorists of their civil rights for running the highway trap and was given a concurrent five-year sentence.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...id=1988_592005
Now, do you need links to the book based on the case?
Maybe the tv movie?
Anything else you need to quit pretending it never happened?
when alqueda signs the geneva convention, let me know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
