Sure the US courts have determined that raping someone to death has always been illegal in the PAST, but the courts havent ruled as to whether or not raping someone to death in this particular way is illegal, so there's a 'debate' about the subject. It's just impossible to say!
Sure the US courts have determined that raping someone to death has always been illegal in the PAST, but the courts havent ruled as to whether or not raping someone to death in this particular way is illegal, so there's a 'debate' about the subject. It's just impossible to say!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Let's go over the facts again. First you claimed "everyone was lying" then changed your story to Libby was lying. Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was, the leaker confessed, no charges were filed. You keep saying Fitz "specifically" said this or that but then don't provide any quotes. I provided quotes from the official transcript yet it is supposedly me that isn't serious. You're funny.
Next, if the wiretapping issue were so cut and dried as you claim it to be, why hasn't anyone in the Bush administration been charged with a crime? Its not like the Bush administration denied your allegations. They believed what they were doing was legal. As I stated before, Congress also believed it was legally justified enough to make sure there was no question about the ongoing legality of that program. In the end, you haven't proved shit about shit and Bush walks free. I don't know what that says about Bush, but if his "crimes" are as clear as you claim, it says infinitely more about Obama since he has the power to do something about it. Of course you lefties might offer up a meek "disappointed" because you would never proclaim the kind of angst against one of your own, no matter how much he lies to you.
Ahem......I would say 60+ years of US case law consistently ruling that it is illegal means something. Don't you? It's not like anyone on this forum has made this shit up. These are US judges ruling on cases, you know, real judges? They have said it's illegal, and you have jackshit to back up your unfounded assertions.
Just because most of this country are idiots and so afraid of their shadow that they would willing give up their freedoms and allow illegal acts to be perpetrated on others doesn't make it right. OJ was found innocent or murder. Does that mean he didn't commit a crime? No, it meant he wasn't convicted. Chances are good he did it, but didn't get convicted. Doesn't change the fact that he committed a crime.
But hey, don't let blind partisanship get in the way of logical thinking. We don't you to hurt yourself.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
:sigh:
I've been over this with you already. Not all waterboarding is the same.
Now, are you daft or do you just have short term memory problems?
Once *anyone* is in whatver form of custody/detention/prison you call it, yes they *all* have basic rights. Unless you are going to claim they are somehow un-human.
Just becuase they are scum doesn't mean we throw out the rule of law.
Do you think somehow our laws don't apply to all US jails, and only some of them? That somehow the FBI/CIA has special rules for inside vs outside the US?
You are attempting to say that something may not be legal due to it not fulfilling a particular element of the crime. That element is a qualitative judgment on what constitutes 'severe mental suffering' and 'prolonged mental harm'. Recognized experts in the field most certainly DO matter when it comes to establishing these elements of the crime, and since that is what you have focused your debate upon, you invite their judgment.
I also suggest you look up the term 'argumentum ad populum', because you are not using it correctly. What you should really be accusing me of is an 'appeal to authority', but even that wouldn't fly. This once again comes back to your problems with normal human discourse. Of course just because every recognized expert on the planet thinks waterboarding is torture doesn't mean that it is infallably so, what it does mean is that a reasonable person would look at the evidence on both sides and conclude that it is almost certainly so.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Why just stop at rape? Why didn't you make it 'child rape to death' instead so your argument could be even more emotionally charged?
Sheesh. It's pathetic the low depths some in here will stoop to when making an argument.
Well, that is TLC's opinion. Maybe murder is now OK in his ind.
I don't think the law says anything about using a needle to poke someones eyes out. I guess TLC thinks that it is legal as well.
TLC for Chief Justice! He'll fix all of our stupid laws!
No, we're just still waiting for you to explain to us what about the waterboarding procedure differs materially from the waterboarding that others have been convicted of in the past. You keep shrieking about how this is different, but you can't seem to come up with any examples how outside of the incredibly convincing argument of 'there was a doctor in the room'.
Wrong. But you can't comprehend that.
You think waterboarding is somehow different.
US judges and the law say something different.
So can I waterboard you according to the DoD/CIA regulations, since it's legal, according to you? Hell, you might like it.
So would you agree that we don't need to wait for a court of law to determine if raping someone to death is illegal or not? You said that only the courts can determine an action's illegality. Just looking for some consistency here.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Murder is defined by the words of our laws, just as torture is. Oddly enough, people disagree with legal decisions even AFTER they are made. And a legal decision hasn't even come close to being made in this case yet. Yet you and others sling opinion around in here as fact, specifically your own opinions and whatever opinions you can muster to reinforce your own belief.
Just think about the arrogance of that.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
No US court has ruled on the CIA waterboarding issue, stupid. WTF can't you get that through your thick head?
No US court has ruled on this particular type of child rape, that means you can't say it's illegal! There's just no way to know!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I would wait to determine if a court of law ruled that a certain person was guilty of raping someone to death. Each case has its own circumstances. Raping a child to death is specifically against the law. However, as many others have pointed out over the years, waterboarding, despite the numerous opportunities to do so, was never specifically deemed to be against the law in the US until the McCain amendment.
So why are you trying to muddy the waters over this issue?
There are tons of things that aren't specifically stated in a law one way or the other, but are still part of US law as a whole. That's the entire purpose of legal precedent. You are in effect requiring us to ignore precedent when making judgments, which is an insane proposition. Absolute silliness.
You would most certainly be correct in waiting for a court of law to determine if a specific person were guilty of the crime, but you would never suggest that the rape of a child itself is up for debate as far as its legality was concerned. Waterboarding has been determined to be illegal by US courts under US law, and that is the ruling precedent until it is overturned by a higher court. Hell, if it's even under review by a higher court I would say it's open for debate. It hasn't been.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
We've been over this already.
If this was waterboarding identical to the kind used in Japan or Vietnam it'd be a no brainer. Of course it would qualify as torture. However, the CIA methods specifically took the exisiting law into account. That changes "precedent" by quite a margin. And however flawed you believe the DOJ opinion to be, none of that matters until a court of law makes a determination. It's all pure conjecture until then.
Still waiting for you to offer ways in which the CIA's waterboarding different in a material way from the type that was ruled illegal. I've yet to see one. This simply reminds me of the evolution/creationism 'debate'.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Fern already addressed that issue a while back and I followed up on it.
This is the "playing dumb" part of your argument that I already addressed.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well...
" The indictment asserted that the defendants conspired to ?subject prisoners to a suffocating ?water torture? ordeal in order to coerce confessions.? The sheriff and his deputies were convicted. The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed. U.S. v. Lee, 744 F.2d 1124 (1983). At sentencing, U.S. District Judge James DeAnda admonished the former sheriff: ?The operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country.?
This is Senator Whitehouse's comments..
I'm not sure if you mean that the above case is not applicable or what.. but it is the foundation upon which ethical issues were raised against the OLC..
No, he most certainly did not address the issue. None of those things he mentioned made waterboarding materially different than what was declared illegal in the past, and such was admitted by the head of the OLC in his testimony to Congress when he said that the DOJ has never made the determination that waterboarding would be legal under any circumstances.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Was the question asked whether or not the DOJ determined waterboarding to be illegal?
As much as you and others in here strain to avoid the issue, the CIA did implement their waterboarding practices different than had ever been done before. Existing law was considered and they tailored the technique around that law. You may not like it, but that's a fact of the matter.
Whether or not they pulled it off is another question. Unlike you, I'm not going to jump to conclusions on the matter and arrogantly assume I know how the courts might decide on the issue.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
A DailyKOS link? lol.
btw, did you notice their "article" never mentioned what the sheriff was found guilty of? Maybe you need to do some more digging that goes beyond a lefty website? Give it a shot and dig up the actual facts about the case, please.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter