Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[jonks]

In other news read about the whitewashing away of torture. Waterboarding used to be Water Torture and Forced Drowning. But we can't be doing those unpleasant sounding things could we? We just waterboard on hot spring days to keep cool. Oh George Carlin, I miss you dearly.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3404

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial

Well I was thinking of the judgment in the case. Color me shocked that TLC claims to know what was in it and yet can't produce it. Interestingly enough, his 'trust me' theory of evidence neatly coincides with the OLC's standard for evidence in their legal arguments. I think this explains a lot.

It only explains a lot in eskimospy's rationalization of whatever he wants to believe, which is frequently far divorced from reality.

You're allegedly a smart boy. At least that's what you imply. Track it down yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial

Well I was thinking of the judgment in the case. Color me shocked that TLC claims to know what was in it and yet can't produce it. Interestingly enough, his 'trust me' theory of evidence neatly coincides with the OLC's standard for evidence in their legal arguments. I think this explains a lot.

It only explains a lot in eskimospy's rationalization of whatever he wants to believe, which is frequently far divorced from reality.

You're allegedly a smart boy. At least that's what you imply. Track it down yourself.

I'm not the one claiming to have knowledge of the contents of something, you are. In what world does 'I read this thing and while you can't see it, it totally supports me' fly?

I think you're full of shit and now you're trying to cover it up.

EDIT: I freely admit my inability to find it on the internet. Since you have found it once already, I defer to your superior internet searching skills.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial

Are you going to answer my question now, since you diverted with the claim that I didn't answer yours (when I already had, you just didn't comprehend the answer)? I'll post it again for you:

Do you think that sheriff issued memos that defined specific rules to follow to ensure he wasn't breaking the law while waterboarding?

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

Because we've seen no credible evidence as to why they should be treated differently. This has been made abundantly clear to you.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, Jonks's link is a later appeal of one defendant from that trial, not a link to the actual case.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I read the ruling nearly two years ago, don't currently have a link, and don't have the time nor the inclination to do your legwork for you.

what document would you consider to be "the actual case" worth linking to? what ruling did you read? this was a criminal jury trial

Are you going to answer my question now, since you diverted with the claim that I didn't answer yours (when I already had, you just didn't comprehend the answer)? I'll post it again for you:

Do you think that sheriff issued memos that defined specific rules to follow to ensure he wasn't breaking the law while waterboarding?

I responded 2 pages ago, right after you asked it. But here it is again:

Originally posted by: jonks
As to your "question", did the sherriff issue memos defining specific rules to follow to ensure he wasn't breaking the law while waterboarding? Waterboarding is illegal torture. Your question is asking "did the sherrif issue memos on how to not break the law while breaking the law." What would have made it "not torture"? having a doctor nearby watching? Only doing it once a day? Writing a memo issuing guidelines on torture doesn't make it not torture.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

When you demonstrate how the US applying the technique makes it different than anyone else doing it, maybe people will have a different answer than a torture technique doesn't stop being torture just because we're doing it.

And I'm curious what "judgment" or "opinion" you read 2 years ago given that it was a jury verdict? You know that judges generally don't write opinions on the verdict in criminal jury trials. So, what did you read exactly?

 

[Lemon law]

Tell me TLC, when we charge someone with murder, do we make clue game distinction on questions like was it done with an ax, a rope, a gun, or poison?

 

[NoStateofMind]

They are all just making shit up as they go. Whatiflanders floating freely on their imaginary wonderland. I mean hell, anyone can hold an argument using their imagination.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Tell me TLC, when we charge someone with murder, do we make clue game distinction on questions like was it done with an ax, a rope, a gun, or poison?

We should start waterboarding all those suspected of murder, just to make sure they aren't lying, cause you know, it makes them tell the truth and saves lives :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

Because we've seen no credible evidence as to why they should be treated differently. This has been made abundantly clear to you.

What been made abundantly clear is that when it comes to that question you'd rather plug your fingers in your ears and go "Lalalalalalalalala..."

I've already given credible evidence by pointing out that it's easily possible to do two nearly identical things and used killing as an example. Under the law killing can be either legal or illegal. It depends on the specifics and what the law defines. You can ignore that fact all you want, and pretend that it's somehow not credible evidence, but you'd only appear to be an obstinate fool if you did. So it's your choice. Be an obstinate fool, or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

Because we've seen no credible evidence as to why they should be treated differently. This has been made abundantly clear to you.

What been made abundantly clear is that when it comes to that question you'd rather plug your fingers in your ears and go "Lalalalalalalalala..."

I've already given credible evidence by pointing out that it's easily possible to do two nearly identical things and used killing as an example. Under the law killing can be either legal or illegal. It depends on the specifics and what the law defines. You can ignore that fact all you want, and pretend that it's somehow not credible evidence, but you'd only appear to be an obstinate fool if you did. So it's your choice. Be an obstinate fool, or not.

No, you've provided a discredited memo based upon circular evidence. That shit doesn't even fly in the People's Court.

On another note, and as jonks asked, can you describe what legal document you read two years ago that had nothing to do with waterboarding?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

Every time I think you can't get any worse, you take it a step further..

If you'd only show such hatred toward terrorists that want us wiped off this planet. Hell, I don't think I've ever seen you post anything negative about torture of American citizens. Yet you post that TLC is dangerous. Bush is 100x the American you will ever be.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

Every time I think you can't get any worse, you take it a step further..

If you'd only show such hatred toward terrorists that want us wiped off this planet. Hell, I don't think I've ever seen you post anything negative about torture of American citizens. Yet you post that TLC is dangerous. Bush is 100x the American you will ever be.

And you're as evil and dangerous as TLC with even less brain power behind it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

When you demonstrate how the US applying the technique makes it different than anyone else doing it, maybe people will have a different answer than a torture technique doesn't stop being torture just because we're doing it.

I've already stated how it's different. Since people love to cite the Japanese war crimes trial where Yukio Asano was found guilty of waterboarding (Which is really a bastardization of the truth. He inflicted all kinds of tortures on his prisoners and then, when he done, usually executed them and was found guilty of numerous crimes. But, hey, why quibble about extraneous, ommitted information, eh? ) let's look at the differences. In the Japanese version water was forced into their nostrils until the time came when they passed out. Then they smacked them around to rouse them and started all over again. There was no oversight. They didn't use a specific formulation of saline. The amount of time that water could be applied wasn't restricited. Nobody cared if a prisoner got water in his lungs. There was no concern about the welfare of the prisoner whatsoever.

Have you even bothered to look at the restrictions placed on the CIA when they were waterboarding? I think that if you had you wouldn't be asking such questions in the first place.

And I'm curious what "judgment" or "opinion" you read 2 years ago given that it was a jury verdict? You know that judges generally don't write opinions on the verdict in criminal jury trials. So, what did you read exactly?

I said "ruling" before and ruling was a poor choice of words. iirc, what I read was the formal arraignment. It laid out the charges and the facts of the case. All I recall about the link itself is that it was an .edu and it was a scanned pdf. Beyond that, the case really wasn't about torture or waterboarding. The document referred to it as "water torture" but didn't cite any law that defined water torture as illegal. Then again, water torture wasn't really the primary focus of the case.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

Yeah, I'm terrible for having questions about the law.

:roll:

Do you actually think anyone swallows your kool-aid and your transparently lame character attacks besides yourself? If so, you're even more deluded then I imagine. Do everyone a favor and stay on your meds, Harvey. The world will be a safer place if you do because you consistently act just this side of going postal.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

Yeah, I'm terrible for having questions about the law.

No, you're far worse than terrible. You're a sick, depraved monster for even considering a sham intellectual defense for the ethical and moral depravity embodied in the acts committed by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals.

Do you actually think anyone swallows your kool-aid and your transparently lame character attacks besides yourself? If so, you're even more deluded then I imagine.

We could post a poll of everyone posting in this thread, and with the exception of you and one or two of your fellow right wingnut torture junkies, you'll find that you're the screaming lunatic.

Do everyone a favor and stay on your meds, Harvey. The world will be a safer place if you do because you consistently act just this side of going postal.

Do everyone a favor and stay in your padded cell, Chickeedoodle. The real human beings of the world needs protection from murderous whackos like you. :|

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :evil:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, is anyone in here shouting "WATERBOARDING" going to recognize that not all waterboarding is equivalent? For some reason there's a dead silence when I ask that question, and I've asked it often. Feel like answering it or will you continue to pretend it's all the same?

That's not silence. That's stunned disbelief that any American citizen, that any human being, would believe, let alone utter that pile dogshit you spew. You are a disgrace to every human value our nation held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, and you are dangerous. :|

Yeah, I'm terrible for having questions about the law.

No, you're far worse than terrible. You're a sick, depraved monster for even considering a sham intellectual defense for the ethical and moral depravity embodied in the acts committed by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals.

Do you actually think anyone swallows your kool-aid and your transparently lame character attacks besides yourself? If so, you're even more deluded then I imagine.

We could post a poll of everyone posting in this thread, and with the exception of you and one or two of your fellow right wingnut torture junkies, you'll find that you're the screaming lunatic.

Do everyone a favor and stay on your meds, Harvey. The world will be a safer place if you do because you consistently act just this side of going postal.

Do everyone a favor and stay in your padded cell, Chickeedoodle. The real human beings of the world needs protection from murderous whackos like you. :|

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :evil:

PROOF that TLC is murderous or are you just TROLLING? You have some serious mental problem that you can take what people say in P&N and call them murderous.. Bordering on libel I would say, well, not bordering on it, it IS..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Do everyone a favor and stay in your padded cell, Chickeedoodle. The real human beings of the world needs protection from murderous whackos like you. :|

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :evil:

PROOF that TLC is murderous or are you just TROLLING?

[/quote]

Sure. Please note that I regard YOU to be as much an inhuman, murderous beast, as TLC.

TORTURE is a violent crime against another human being that includes the possiblity, even the probability of the death of the victim.

The topic of this thread is the crimes of TORTURE committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals, some of whom have actually died as a result of the TORTURE inflicted on them. Any such deaths may support the charge of MURDER under the "felony-murder" rule.

A rule of law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the common law. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. Burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. Burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of assault and battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder.

The future of the felony-murder rule is in doubt. Some jurisdictions have abolished the rule and others continue to limit its application. In the 1982 case of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140, the Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the death penalty upon an accomplice who neither kills, attempts to kill, or intends that a killing occur or lethal force be used in the commission of a felony-murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In those states that have retained the offense, it is usually classified as murder in the first degree, for which the penalty might be death or imprisonment.

Death is a foreseeable consequence of TORTURE which would satisfy any requirement for linkage between the TORTURE and the resulting death.

The noted exceptions to the rule does not rule out a death caused by TORTURE, except in jurisdictions where "all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder," but even in those jurisdictions, any death caused by TORTURE would still be MURDER.

I have no way of knowing what actual crimes either of you has committed, but both of you have posted to support and defend the Bushwhackos' use of TORTURE while denying that some specific deviant variations of their criminal acts somehow skirt U.S. and international laws prohibiting it.

AFIC, that makes the word, "MURDEROUS" applicable to both of you. :|

You have some serious mental problem that you can take what people say in P&N and call them murderous.. Bordering on libel I would say, well, not bordering on it, it IS..

YOU advocate TORTURE, and you think I have mental problems? :shocked:

Seek professional help... QUICKLY! If you believe in some deity, ask your clergy to explain ethics and morality to you.

And your understanding of "libel" is equally shallow, but at least, it doesn't threaten the death of another human being. I've called you "MURDEROUS." Sue me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
PROOF that TLC is murderous or are you just TROLLING? You have some serious mental problem that you can take what people say in P&N and call them murderous.. Bordering on libel I would say, well, not bordering on it, it IS..

Let him be.

Every time Harvey posts a P&N tantrum it's just further proof of what I've been saying. He's JUST like those unhinged, foaming-at-the-mouth, abortion-protesting jackasses who scream at people at the top of their lungs because they have no tolerance for anyone that doesn't toe their authoritarian line. Let him be a douche all day & all night for all I care. Just do what I do and laugh hysterically at his gyrations.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jonks
And I'm curious what "judgment" or "opinion" you read 2 years ago given that it was a jury verdict? You know that judges generally don't write opinions on the verdict in criminal jury trials. So, what did you read exactly?

I said "ruling" before and ruling was a poor choice of words. iirc, what I read was the formal arraignment. It laid out the charges and the facts of the case. All I recall about the link itself is that it was an .edu and it was a scanned pdf. Beyond that, the case really wasn't about torture or waterboarding. The document referred to it as "water torture" but didn't cite any law that defined water torture as illegal. Then again, water torture wasn't really the primary focus of the case.

Claiming this case is about violations of civil rights and therefore not relevant to the issue of waterboarding is like FNE's claim that wine isn't a drug, alcohol is. Remember, we're discussing whether or not the case deserved a mention in a legal memo, not a brief to a court.

No law was cited that defined water torture as illegal? Then why the civil rights violation? It doesn't make much sense to charge the police with coercing confessions from prisoners if the means they employed were perfectly legal. The reason they were found to have violated civil rights is because they tortured people to get the confessions.

Once again, the appeal of one of the defendants (if and when I can find any further docs on the case I'll post those):
http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/US_v_Lee.pdf

Let's examine the first sentence of Part I of the Opinion.

"Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover, and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which prisoners were subjected to a "water torture" in order to prompt confessions to various crimes."

Huh, the method of interrogation does seem pretty central to the case. A gov't attorney failing to mention in a memo on waterboarding that several police officers were sent to prison for years for violating civil rights because they used waterboarding would be borderline malpractice in private practice.

The exchange as it happened:

Admin: So, do some research, we want to waterboard some people, what's the case law involved in that.
Lawyers: I didn't find any cases involving waterboarding.
Admin: So no one who waterboarded was found guilty of doing anything illegal. Good to know.

The exchange as it should have happened:

Admin: So, do some research, we want to waterboard some people, what's the case law involved in that.
Lawyers: I didn't find any cases where someone was charged with waterboarding as defined in a criminal statute, but there were some cases where defendants were convicted inter alia for civil rights violations because they waterboarded.
Admin: Huh, good to know.

The first keyword identified by Lexis for his case is "torture." Kinda hard to miss it.

But of course the Admin didn't ask the question that way. They said "We want to waterboard some people. Mock up a legal memo providing plausible deniability of its obvious illegality. And make it sharp, we've prosecuted people for doing this to our soldiers in the past."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jonks
And I'm curious what "judgment" or "opinion" you read 2 years ago given that it was a jury verdict? You know that judges generally don't write opinions on the verdict in criminal jury trials. So, what did you read exactly?

I said "ruling" before and ruling was a poor choice of words. iirc, what I read was the formal arraignment. It laid out the charges and the facts of the case. All I recall about the link itself is that it was an .edu and it was a scanned pdf. Beyond that, the case really wasn't about torture or waterboarding. The document referred to it as "water torture" but didn't cite any law that defined water torture as illegal. Then again, water torture wasn't really the primary focus of the case.

Claiming this case is about violations of civil rights and therefore not relevant to the issue of waterboarding is like FNE's claim that wine isn't a drug, alcohol is. Remember, we're discussing whether or not the case deserved a mention in a legal memo, not a brief to a court.

No law was cited that defined water torture as illegal? Then why the civil rights violation? It doesn't make much sense to charge the police with coercing confessions from prisoners if the means they employed were perfectly legal. The reason they were found to have violated civil rights is because they tortured people to get the confessions.

Once again, the appeal of one of the defendants (if and when I can find any further docs on the case I'll post those):
http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/US_v_Lee.pdf

Let's examine the first sentence of Part I of the Opinion.

"Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover, and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which prisoners were subjected to a "water torture" in order to prompt confessions to various crimes."

Huh, the method of interrogation does seem pretty central to the case. A gov't attorney failing to mention in a memo on waterboarding that several police officers were sent to prison for years for violating civil rights because they used waterboarding would be borderline malpractice in private practice.

The exchange as it happened:

Admin: So, do some research, we want to waterboard some people, what's the case law involved in that.
Lawyers: I didn't find any cases involving waterboarding.
Admin: So no one who waterboarded was found guilty of doing anything illegal. Good to know.

The exchange as it should have happened:

Admin: So, do some research, we want to waterboard some people, what's the case law involved in that.
Lawyers: I didn't find any cases where someone was charged with waterboarding as defined in a criminal statute, but there were some cases where defendants were convicted inter alia for civil rights violations because they waterboarded.
Admin: Huh, good to know.

The first keyword identified by Lexis for his case is "torture." Kinda hard to miss it.

But of course the Admin didn't ask the question that way. They said "We want to waterboard some people. Mock up a legal memo providing plausible deniability of its obvious illegality. And make it sharp, we've prosecuted people for doing this to our soldiers in the past."

How many times must this be explained?

"Water torture" was not even legally defined in that case. How do I know that? It's because the anti-torture laws didn't even exist at the time, so there was no applicable law available to charge or prosecute them for torture, water torture, or waterboarding. Thereore there was nothing in the case that spoke to the legality of it. That's why those men were charged with extortion and civil rights violations. Since there was no legal standing concerning torture in that case, or water torture, or water boarding, it would have been senseless to cite it. Can you see the exchange between attorneys?

Attorney 1: What's the citation supposed to be for that case?

Attorney 2: Water torture is mentioned.

Attorney 1: So what did the case legally say about that water torture?

Attorney 2: So how is that case legally relevant to our memos?

Attorney 1: It's not.

You're doting on a giant red herring here based on some superficial assumption that just because "water torture" was involved that it implies some legal standing. It doesn't. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what more to say.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How many times must this be explained?

"Water torture" was not even legally defined in that case. How do I know that? It's because the anti-torture laws didn't even exist at the time, so there was no applicable law available to charge or prosecute them for torture, water torture, or waterboarding. Thereore there was nothing in the case that spoke to the legality of it. That's why those men were charged with extortion and civil rights violations. Since there was no legal standing concerning torture in that case, or water torture, or water boarding, it would have been senseless to cite it. Can you see the exchange between attorneys?

Attorney 1: What's the citation supposed to be for that case?

Attorney 2: Water torture is mentioned.

Attorney 1: So what did the case legally say about that water torture?

Attorney 2: So how is that case legally relevant to our memos?

Attorney 1: It's not.

You're doting on a giant red herring here based on some superficial assumption that just because "water torture" was involved that it implies some legal standing. It doesn't. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what more to say.

Once again, if you think how an action was treated in the past has no bearing on how it will be treated now because new laws have been enacted, specifically in cases where there is no case law for these new laws, you are clueless.

I like how you keep inventing these 'legal' discussions to support your ideas though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How many times must this be explained?

"Water torture" was not even legally defined in that case. How do I know that? It's because the anti-torture laws didn't even exist at the time, so there was no applicable law available to charge or prosecute them for torture, water torture, or waterboarding. Thereore there was nothing in the case that spoke to the legality of it. That's why those men were charged with extortion and civil rights violations. Since there was no legal standing concerning torture in that case, or water torture, or water boarding, it would have been senseless to cite it. Can you see the exchange between attorneys?

Attorney 1: What's the citation supposed to be for that case?

Attorney 2: Water torture is mentioned.

Attorney 1: So what did the case legally say about that water torture?

Attorney 2: So how is that case legally relevant to our memos?

Attorney 1: It's not.

You're doting on a giant red herring here based on some superficial assumption that just because "water torture" was involved that it implies some legal standing. It doesn't. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what more to say.

Once again, if you think how an action was treated in the past has no bearing on how it will be treated now because new laws have been enacted, specifically in cases where there is no case law for these new laws, you are clueless.

I like how you keep inventing these 'legal' discussions to support your ideas though.

Wow. What an awesomely convincing rebuttal, full of facts, and links, and...

Oh, wait. It's just eskimospy's biased opinion. Nevermind.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How many times must this be explained?

"Water torture" was not even legally defined in that case. How do I know that? It's because the anti-torture laws didn't even exist at the time, so there was no applicable law available to charge or prosecute them for torture, water torture, or waterboarding. Thereore there was nothing in the case that spoke to the legality of it. That's why those men were charged with extortion and civil rights violations. Since there was no legal standing concerning torture in that case, or water torture, or water boarding, it would have been senseless to cite it. Can you see the exchange between attorneys?

Attorney 1: What's the citation supposed to be for that case?

Attorney 2: Water torture is mentioned.

Attorney 1: So what did the case legally say about that water torture?

Attorney 2: So how is that case legally relevant to our memos?

Attorney 1: It's not.

You're doting on a giant red herring here based on some superficial assumption that just because "water torture" was involved that it implies some legal standing. It doesn't. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what more to say.

Once again, if you think how an action was treated in the past has no bearing on how it will be treated now because new laws have been enacted, specifically in cases where there is no case law for these new laws, you are clueless.

I like how you keep inventing these 'legal' discussions to support your ideas though.

Wow. What an awesomely convincing rebuttal, full of facts, and links, and...

Oh, wait. It's just eskimospy's biased opinion. Nevermind.

As you have been told probably in excess of a dozen times in this thread alone, you have already been presented with facts. You simply choose to ignore inconvenient information.

I will be sure to include discussions with imaginary lawyers in my future posts.