Justice department launches new investigations of GWB era torture policy.

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.

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?

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..

What were the sheriff and his buddies found guilty of?

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding.

Let me guess.... roasting chickens in Gnu lard without proper ventilation.
According to this... the justice dept got confessions regarding waterboarding... I can't use Lexus/nexus and post from it ... well n/m... here's the link

link

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.

Use what ever you want to use... I gave Senator Whitehouse's link also.. there are lots and lots of them.... They CONFESSED.... to waterboarding... simple and no one in the legal community can understand how a case on point was not considered by OLC...

EDIT: Not sure but perhaps you mean the case was filed under Civil Rights laws? ... The position of Mukasey was that they didn't use Torture laws.... a distinction with no difference... Still, the case is On point...firmly...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.

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?

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..

What were the sheriff and his buddies found guilty of?

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding.

Let me guess.... roasting chickens in Gnu lard without proper ventilation.
According to this... the justice dept got confessions regarding waterboarding... I can't use Lexus/nexus and post from it ... well n/m... here's the link

link

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.

Use what ever you want to use... I gave Senator Whitehouse's link also.. there are lots and lots of them.... They CONFESSED.... to waterboarding... simple and no one in the legal community can understand how a case on point was not considered by OLC...

I never claimed they didn't CONFESS to waterboarding. What I asked is "What were they convicted of?"

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding. You know why? Because, until very recently, there was no specific law prohibiting waterboarding. In the past it could be brought up in a case as a moral travesty, but there was no law in the US to use to convict anyone of waterboarding. Why would the DOJ bring up past cases that had no relevance to existing law?

Don't like waterboarding? Fine. Complain to your local Sen/Rep who likely never specifically voted to make it illegal until 2006.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

It's simply not a question of whether I like it or not. Their methods were obviously worthless, and there's not much point to considering them. There's no 'jump to conclusions' here, it's simply a question of taking the overwhelming opinion of every expert on the planet in conjunction with US legal precedent and drawing a rational conclusion. You're attempting to fight against that rational conclusion, but that simply speaks to your inability to admit you're wrong.

What can I really do to that? Not much, but then again nobody really buys your crap anyway.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Use what ever you want to use... I gave Senator Whitehouse's link also.. there are lots and lots of them.... They CONFESSED.... to waterboarding... simple and no one in the legal community can understand how a case on point was not considered by OLC...
I never claimed they didn't CONFESS to waterboarding. What I asked is "What were they convicted of?"

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding. You know why? Because, until very recently, there was no specific law prohibiting waterboarding. In the past it could be brought up in a case as a moral travesty, but there was no law in the US to use to convict anyone of waterboarding. Why would the DOJ bring up past cases that had no relevance to existing law?

Don't like waterboarding? Fine. Complain to your local Sen/Rep who likely never specifically voted to make it illegal until 2006.

Little chicken man:

There is no law specifically saying that I can't do a lot of things, as everyoen has mentioned before. Is there a law that specifically says I can't poke your eyes out with a needle? No.

Would Everyone agree that it is illegal? Yes. (Except for you, who would claim it is legal0

Are you so in denial to support torture that you twist yourself into bigger and bigger pretzels?

You want torture. Fine. You tell congress to make it legal. The rest of the world (including all those pesky judges that you hate) all agree that waterboarding is illegal. All wtaerboarding. Full stop.

But again, I guess we can waterboard you, since it's legal, right? Do you mind, since you think it's OK?

And also, you want to try defending the probably 30-100 people that died as a result of our torture program? That's legal too? You have no problem with that either? I guess not, as long as it's no one you know.

So once again, you have no proof. Everyone can see that you are as full of shit as a goose, since you can't provide one shred of evidence that waterboarding isn't illegal. There isn't one case you can show where waterboarding happened and US courts found a person innocent. Not one. All you can continue to do is shout out this novel legal theory based on your unique knowledge that somehow when the US does it, it's legal, and it's just illegal for everyone else.

So again, put up or shut up. We have posted cases from the past 60+ years that are all consistant in their ruling: That waterboarding is torture. We don't make this up, it's not our opinion, it's the ruling of multiple judges over 60 years.

Where is your evidence? Where is your cases that show people can torture?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

It's simply not a question of whether I like it or not. Their methods were obviously worthless, and there's not much point to considering them. There's no 'jump to conclusions' here, it's simply a question of taking the overwhelming opinion of every expert on the planet in conjunction with US legal precedent and drawing a rational conclusion. You're attempting to fight against that rational conclusion, but that simply speaks to your inability to admit you're wrong.

What can I really do to that? Not much, but then again nobody really buys your crap anyway.

Wow. Talk about having your eyes shut tightly. Do you really believe that pretending that waterboarding was worthless changes the facts available now that, after being waterboarded, these guys starting singing like divas?

And if every single legal expert opines, as you incessantly keep spouting, that their actions were illegal, then why no court case on it? Why have experts, even in Obamam's government, looked at the issues and seemingly refuse to pursue a legal case?

Methinks you're talking out your ass using poor rationals and weak justifications so you can cling hardheadedly steadfast to your singular OPINION. You see, I'm not wrong because my only belief in this issue is that I entertain BOTH possibilities. You, however, refuse to entertain the possibility of one side. So stow your pontifications about who, in your OPINION, is wrong on this issue.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Use what ever you want to use... I gave Senator Whitehouse's link also.. there are lots and lots of them.... They CONFESSED.... to waterboarding... simple and no one in the legal community can understand how a case on point was not considered by OLC...
I never claimed they didn't CONFESS to waterboarding. What I asked is "What were they convicted of?"

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding. You know why? Because, until very recently, there was no specific law prohibiting waterboarding. In the past it could be brought up in a case as a moral travesty, but there was no law in the US to use to convict anyone of waterboarding. Why would the DOJ bring up past cases that had no relevance to existing law?

Don't like waterboarding? Fine. Complain to your local Sen/Rep who likely never specifically voted to make it illegal until 2006.

Little chicken man:

There is no law specifically saying that I can't do a lot of things, as everyoen has mentioned before. Is there a law that specifically says I can't poke your eyes out with a needle? No.

Would Everyone agree that it is illegal? Yes. (Except for you, who would claim it is legal0

Are you so in denial to support torture that you twist yourself into bigger and bigger pretzels?

You want torture. Fine. You tell congress to make it legal. The rest of the world (including all those pesky judges that you hate) all agree that waterboarding is illegal. All wtaerboarding. Full stop.

But again, I guess we can waterboard you, since it's legal, right? Do you mind, since you think it's OK?

And also, you want to try defending the probably 30-100 people that died as a result of our torture program? That's legal too? You have no problem with that either? I guess not, as long as it's no one you know.

So once again, you have no proof. Everyone can see that you are as full of shit as a goose, since you can't provide one shred of evidence that waterboarding isn't illegal. There isn't one case you can show where waterboarding happened and US courts found a person innocent. Not one. All you can continue to do is shout out this novel legal theory based on your unique knowledge that somehow when the US does it, it's legal, and it's just illegal for everyone else.

So again, put up or shut up. We have posted cases from the past 60+ years that are all consistant in their ruling: That waterboarding is torture. We don't make this up, it's not our opinion, it's the ruling of multiple judges over 60 years.

Where is your evidence? Where is your cases that show people can torture?

Harvey does that schtick better than you and he sucks at it.

Trying to equate waterboarding with poking someone's eye out with a needle is about as assinine as it gets.

And if I ever plan to kill thousands of innocent civilians, pull it off, and I'm captured by those I planned against, you know what? I probably deserve to be waterboarded and far, far worse. Unfortunately it seems that we have a lot of people who have more compassion for a murderous thugs getting water up his nose than for their fellow citizens. You just keep clinging to that attitude, Mr. Compassionate.

I've already addressed your other foolish questions and you keep popping back up with them over and over like a Bozo the Clown punching bag coming back for more. If you're going to continue to ignore my answers then there's no reason to take this any further.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if I ever plan to kill thousands of innocent civilians, pull it off, and I'm captured by those I planned against, you know what? I probably deserve to be waterboarded and far, far worse. Unfortunately it seems that we have a lot of people who have more compassion for a murderous thugs getting water up his nose than for their fellow citizens. You just keep clinging to that attitude, Mr. Compassionate.

I've already addressed your other foolish questions and you keep popping back up with them over and over like a Bozo the Clown punching bag coming back for more. If you're going to continue to ignore my answers then there's no reason to take this any further.

See, this is what is wrong with you. Somehow the concept of the law applies to everyone doesn't matter to you. If someone does something you don't like, the law doesn't matter.

The truth comes out with your quote I bolded above. Your waterboarding has nothing to do with information, you make it clear above that you just want to inflict pain on someone as payback. So much for getting information, huh? Just make them pay. I guess you showed your true colors after all.

Terrorists are scum. That doesn't mean they don't get rights.
Rapists are scum. That doesn't mean they don't get rights.

Just like you don't support the police beating up a rapist (you don't, do you?) because they did something disgusting, you shouldn't support torture of terrorists. It's the same thing. I guess that is beyond your comprehension.

And once again, you ignore the fact of the 30+ people that have died. Is murder not a crime now either? I guess not, after all, they are terrorists, right? Just keep right on ignoring that fact.

If you cared about this country, you would support a full investigation, with criminal proceedings brought against anyone and everyone that was shown to break the law. Then let the courts and juries decide. Since you "know" that it's all legal, there shouldn't be a problem, right? I mean if they are all innocent, what are you (and them) worried about? No jury would convict them wrongly, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

It's simply not a question of whether I like it or not. Their methods were obviously worthless, and there's not much point to considering them. There's no 'jump to conclusions' here, it's simply a question of taking the overwhelming opinion of every expert on the planet in conjunction with US legal precedent and drawing a rational conclusion. You're attempting to fight against that rational conclusion, but that simply speaks to your inability to admit you're wrong.

What can I really do to that? Not much, but then again nobody really buys your crap anyway.

Wow. Talk about having your eyes shut tightly. Do you really believe that pretending that waterboarding was worthless changes the facts available now that, after being waterboarded, these guys starting singing like divas?

And if every single legal expert opines, as you incessantly keep spouting, that their actions were illegal, then why no court case on it? Why have experts, even in Obamam's government, looked at the issues and seemingly refuse to pursue a legal case?

Methinks you're talking out your ass using poor rationals and weak justifications so you can cling hardheadedly steadfast to your singular OPINION. You see, I'm not wrong because my only belief in this issue is that I entertain BOTH possibilities. You, however, refuse to entertain the possibility of one side. So stow your pontifications about who, in your OPINION, is wrong on this issue.

No, you embrace a false dichotomy and a false equivalence where none exists.

Furthermore the effectiveness of waterboarding has nothing to do with whether or not it is illegal. In addition the 'facts available now' most certainly do not show that the people waterboarded started 'singing like divas' (at least in a useful way that prevented attacks). I was referring to the CIA's methods of 'mitigating' waterboarding to make it 'legal'.

Oh, and there most certainly is a court case on this (several actually). John Yoo is currently being sued by Jose Padilla for his role in writing the incompetent memos that led to Padilla being tortured. There are former Guantanamo detainees suing the US for torture, etc... etc. As for Obama's administration refusing to pursue a legal case, this entire thread is about the Obama administration talking about pursuing a legal case against people for this sort of thing. Wow.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And if I ever plan to kill thousands of innocent civilians, pull it off, and I'm captured by those I planned against, you know what? I probably deserve to be waterboarded and far, far worse. Unfortunately it seems that we have a lot of people who have more compassion for a murderous thugs getting water up his nose than for their fellow citizens. You just keep clinging to that attitude, Mr. Compassionate.

I've already addressed your other foolish questions and you keep popping back up with them over and over like a Bozo the Clown punching bag coming back for more. If you're going to continue to ignore my answers then there's no reason to take this any further.

See, this is what is wrong with you. Somehow the concept of the law applies to everyone doesn't matter to you. If someone does something you don't like, the law doesn't matter.

The truth comes out with your quote I bolded above. Your waterboarding has nothing to do with information, you make it clear above that you just want to inflict pain on someone as payback. So much for getting information, huh? Just make them pay. I guess you showed your true colors after all.

Terrorists are scum. That doesn't mean they don't get rights.
Rapists are scum. That doesn't mean they don't get rights.

Just like you don't support the police beating up a rapist (you don't, do you?) because they did something disgusting, you shouldn't support torture of terrorists. It's the same thing. I guess that is beyond your comprehension.

And once again, you ignore the fact of the 30+ people that have died. Is murder not a crime now either? I guess not, after all, they are terrorists, right? Just keep right on ignoring that fact.

If you cared about this country, you would support a full investigation, with criminal proceedings brought against anyone and everyone that was shown to break the law. Then let the courts and juries decide. Since you "know" that it's all legal, there shouldn't be a problem, right? I mean if they are all innocent, what are you (and them) worried about? No jury would convict them wrongly, right?

You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, you embrace a false dichotomy and a false equivalence where none exists.

Untrue. What I embrace is the possibility of legal outcomes, something you completely discard. I'm not being the closed-minded one in this ssue, you are, insisting you are absolutely right and anyone that disagres with your OPINION is wrong. You seem to have a difficult time in separating your own opinion from what is realistic.

Furthermore the effectiveness of waterboarding has nothing to do with whether or not it is illegal. In addition the 'facts available now' most certainly do not show that the people waterboarded started 'singing like divas' (at least in a useful way that prevented attacks). I was referring to the CIA's methods of 'mitigating' waterboarding to make it 'legal'.

Where did I claim that the effcetiveness of waterboarding makes it legal? I was simply addressing your claim that it's not effective, yet the recently released documents tell a different story.

Oh, and there most certainly is a court case on this (several actually). John Yoo is currently being sued by Jose Padilla for his role in writing the incompetent memos that led to Padilla being tortured. There are former Guantanamo detainees suing the US for torture, etc... etc. As for Obama's administration refusing to pursue a legal case, this entire thread is about the Obama administration talking about pursuing a legal case against people for this sort of thing. Wow.

Padilla's lawyers had to shop this case around for quite a while before they could even find a court that wouldn't toss it. Unsurprisingly, they finally found a taker in *gasp* San Francisco.

As far as the current attempts to establish court cases, the cases are to be against individuals that stepped beyond the boundries of the allowable EITs. So this won't call into question the legality or illegality of waterboarding, which is the specific issue I have been talking about all along.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, you embrace a false dichotomy and a false equivalence where none exists.

Untrue. What I embrace is the possibility of legal outcomes, something you completely discard. I'm not being the closed-minded one in this ssue, you are, insisting you are absolutely right and anyone that disagres with your OPINION is wrong. You seem to have a difficult time in separating your own opinion from what is realistic.

Furthermore the effectiveness of waterboarding has nothing to do with whether or not it is illegal. In addition the 'facts available now' most certainly do not show that the people waterboarded started 'singing like divas' (at least in a useful way that prevented attacks). I was referring to the CIA's methods of 'mitigating' waterboarding to make it 'legal'.

Where did I claim that the effcetiveness of waterboarding makes it legal? I was simply addressing your claim that it's not effective, yet the recently released documents tell a different story.

Oh, and there most certainly is a court case on this (several actually). John Yoo is currently being sued by Jose Padilla for his role in writing the incompetent memos that led to Padilla being tortured. There are former Guantanamo detainees suing the US for torture, etc... etc. As for Obama's administration refusing to pursue a legal case, this entire thread is about the Obama administration talking about pursuing a legal case against people for this sort of thing. Wow.

Padilla's lawyers had to shop this case around for quite a while before they could even find a court that wouldn't toss it. Unsurprisingly, they finally found a taker in *gasp* San Francisco.

As far as the current attempts to establish court cases, the cases are to be against individuals that stepped beyond the boundries of the allowable EITs. So this won't call into question the legality or illegality of waterboarding, which is the specific issue I have been talking about all along.

'The current attempts to establish court cases' that of course are in addition to the court cases that already exist. Damn those librul courts! As for 'shopping the case around for a court that wouldn't toss it', are you claiming that Padilla tried this case in a different court and had it thrown out? Which court was this? Even if that were true your claim that there were no court proceedings on this were obviously false. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

There are tons of things that are just OPINIONS in the world, but that doesn't mean that a rational person can't look at the available evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. You've long ago retreated to the same argument that creationists use of their being a 'debate' on a topic because a tiny minority of motivated people feel otherwise. That's all well and good, but don't expect people to take you seriously. Waterboarding is torture, it has been considered torture worldwide for decades if not centuries, it was declared torture by several US courts. The CIA's form of waterboarding does not differ in a material sense from these techniques that have been previously labeled torture and prosecuted in the past. These are inescapable facts and no matter how much you try to squirm out from under them, you can't.

Stay in denial all you want, you know as well as I do that you're far too emotionally invested in this argument to admit that you're wrong. I don't know why you're so invested in it other than some visceral dislike for liberals that you seem to have, but you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

It's not like you're in here to debate anything either.

 

[piasabird]

Have everyone on the O'Bamma administration resign that ever cheated on their taxes, then we can talk about the last administration.

It is like the Pot calling the Kettle black!

 

[piasabird]

Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!
Fix the Economy Stupid!

Completely under the jurisdiction of the DoJ ....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

It's not like you're in here to debate anything either.

Ah...a hint at the truth. Just just why are you here Eskimospy?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
'The current attempts to establish court cases' that of course are in addition to the court cases that already exist. Damn those librul courts! As for 'shopping the case around for a court that wouldn't toss it', are you claiming that Padilla tried this case in a different court and had it thrown out? Which court was this? Even if that were true your claim that there were no court proceedings on this were obviously false. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

I'm saying that Padilla's lawyer attempted to get other district courts to hear this case and none would. That's a matter of public record. And since you like to rely on the opinion of legal scholars, quite a few believe that Padilla doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning this case. Of course, it's possible he could. But since you don't care about slim possibilities, he's no doubt going to lose.

There are tons of things that are just OPINIONS in the world, but that doesn't mean that a rational person can't look at the available evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. You've long ago retreated to the same argument that creationists use of their being a 'debate' on a topic because a tiny minority of motivated people feel otherwise. That's all well and good, but don't expect people to take you seriously. Waterboarding is torture, it has been considered torture worldwide for decades if not centuries, it was declared torture by several US courts. The CIA's form of waterboarding does not differ in a material sense from these techniques that have been previously labeled torture and prosecuted in the past. These are inescapable facts and no matter how much you try to squirm out from under them, you can't.

And around and around... I've been over this with you. The case of CIA waterboarding is NOT like every other case of waterboarding in the past. Yet you willfully continue to pretend it's all the same. Why? Is it because doing so is convenient for your argument? Stop being so intellectually dishonest and look at the fucking details because, in the legal world, details matter quite a bit.

Stay in denial all you want, you know as well as I do that you're far too emotionally invested in this argument to admit that you're wrong. I don't know why you're so invested in it other than some visceral dislike for liberals that you seem to have, but you are.

Pot --> Kettle = Black

My dislike is for those pronouncing a legal outcome as already predetermined prior to any actual legal case on the issue. If you imagine this purely to be some sort hard-headedness because you're a "librul," well, that's your little persecution complex and has nothing to do with me.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That still does nothing to explain a difference in technique that would alter waterboarding from illegal to legal. Give me a difference in how they performed it... Something... Anything. The 'prolonged mental harm' is by all accounts impossible to separate from the act itself. Having a doctor stare at it does zero to change that. Attempting to argue so simply makes an apology for hideous torture.

Yeah, the DoJ looked into the law and provided guidelines/changes they felt made the new/modified technique legal. I do not know if these changes have been completely disclosed. What I have seen/read so far include:

- limited duration
- limited volume of water
- medical supervision

IDK if that's the total extent of the new parameters, or if there are more rules.

I suppose if someone gets hold of the DoJ memos and see what they recommended/mandated we'd know more. IDK if they've been publically released.

Fern

How do you square that with the head of the OLC stating: Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law. in February of last year?

From your link:

waterboarding [JURIST news archive] has been barred by measures enacted since it the interrogation technique was used on three terror detainees in 2002 and 2003. Bradbury testified [statement, PDF] that there has been no finding that waterboarding would be permitted under current law, saying that:
As noted, the specifics of the program authorized today are not the same as they were in the initial years. The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding

When waterboarding was done (3 cases known) it was under 'old' law. Since then there has been a law change. That's how it "squared".

FWIW, I think you guys are all getting way off topic here. This current investigation isn't about waterboarding from what I can tell. In fact, I've heard it characterized as an 'investigation' to determine if an investigation is necessary.

More importantly, this investgation is not about waterboarding done back in '03 etc nor anything else done under policy, but looking into situations where people acted outside of policy. Thus, arguing the legality of policy is completely irrelevent to this investigation, and the topic of this thread.

Fern

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

This is funny, from the person that can't produce any evidence or real facts. A debate usually has two opinions, with debate of facts and evidence.

You: waterboarding is legal
Us: No, the law says it's illegal
you: wrong, It's different when we do it
Us: <lists extensive case law>
you: wrong, it's legal, I know it is
Us: <more evidence>
You: wrong, you are all liberals and are wrong.

Yup, that's a debate. I like the refusal to list any case law or other evidence, other then your personal theory of "it's different", without any proof to back it up.

I'm no liberal, but how in the hell did standing up for the rule of law get to be "liberal"?

So again, do you support an investigation and prosecution of anyone found to be breaking the law?

Do you think that having 30+ die after torture to be a crime?

Do you believe in the law? You still won't answer the questions.

Does this sound familar? It's from that infamous liberal and well known left winger, Ronald Reagan. What a liberal he was. Don't you support following a law that Reagan himself championed?

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Of course, this is just me posting another factual comment, which you will insultingly ignore and go on with your rants.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.

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?

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..

What were the sheriff and his buddies found guilty of?

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding.

Let me guess.... roasting chickens in Gnu lard without proper ventilation.
According to this... the justice dept got confessions regarding waterboarding... I can't use Lexus/nexus and post from it ... well n/m... here's the link

link

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.

Use what ever you want to use... I gave Senator Whitehouse's link also.. there are lots and lots of them.... They CONFESSED.... to waterboarding... simple and no one in the legal community can understand how a case on point was not considered by OLC...

I never claimed they didn't CONFESS to waterboarding. What I asked is "What were they convicted of?"

Hint: It wasn't waterboarding. You know why? Because, until very recently, there was no specific law prohibiting waterboarding. In the past it could be brought up in a case as a moral travesty, but there was no law in the US to use to convict anyone of waterboarding. Why would the DOJ bring up past cases that had no relevance to existing law?

Don't like waterboarding? Fine. Complain to your local Sen/Rep who likely never specifically voted to make it illegal until 2006.

Ok... so really all you are saying is; Gonzales, Mukasey, OLC and whichever Legal Scholars supportive of the OLC opinion got it right..

My position is they did not... They did not under any of the Status senarios enjoyed by the detainees... (POW, Criminal etc. under US umbrella or not)

Now for the reasons they did not get it right we need not debate further.. the entire body of legal opinion rendered by folks far more able than you or I have done that for us... We agree or not... It will be for the Final determiners to decide that issue...

So... ergo, I support your right to that view... heck two or more Attorneys General and some top notch lawyers do also... It would seem to me that the Lee case ought to have been dispositive to the chore the OLC was given.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
'The current attempts to establish court cases' that of course are in addition to the court cases that already exist. Damn those librul courts! As for 'shopping the case around for a court that wouldn't toss it', are you claiming that Padilla tried this case in a different court and had it thrown out? Which court was this? Even if that were true your claim that there were no court proceedings on this were obviously false. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

I'm saying that Padilla's lawyer attempted to get other district courts to hear this case and none would. That's a matter of public record. And since you like to rely on the opinion of legal scholars, quite a few believe that Padilla doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning this case. Of course, it's possible he could. But since you don't care about slim possibilities, he's no doubt going to lose.

There are tons of things that are just OPINIONS in the world, but that doesn't mean that a rational person can't look at the available evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. You've long ago retreated to the same argument that creationists use of their being a 'debate' on a topic because a tiny minority of motivated people feel otherwise. That's all well and good, but don't expect people to take you seriously. Waterboarding is torture, it has been considered torture worldwide for decades if not centuries, it was declared torture by several US courts. The CIA's form of waterboarding does not differ in a material sense from these techniques that have been previously labeled torture and prosecuted in the past. These are inescapable facts and no matter how much you try to squirm out from under them, you can't.

And around and around... I've been over this with you. The case of CIA waterboarding is NOT like every other case of waterboarding in the past. Yet you willfully continue to pretend it's all the same. Why? Is it because doing so is convenient for your argument? Stop being so intellectually dishonest and look at the fucking details because, in the legal world, details matter quite a bit.

Stay in denial all you want, you know as well as I do that you're far too emotionally invested in this argument to admit that you're wrong. I don't know why you're so invested in it other than some visceral dislike for liberals that you seem to have, but you are.

Pot --> Kettle = Black

My dislike is for those pronouncing a legal outcome as already predetermined prior to any actual legal case on the issue. If you imagine this purely to be some sort hard-headedness because you're a "librul," well, that's your little persecution complex and has nothing to do with me.

Ah ha, so now instead of there being 'no court cases' as you previously falsely claimed, you have now retreated to the argument that you think they won't succeed. I happen to agree that he is unlikely to win, but the ruling will most likely have nothing to do with whether or not the techniques authorized were torture or not.

You keep shrieking about how the CIA program is somehow different and we keep asking you how it is different in a material way from waterboarding in the past that would somehow keep it in bounds. You continue to flee from this question or provide cosmetic differences that do nothing to change the underlying technique.

Christopher Hitchens underwent the mildest form of waterboarding possible and says he still has psychological after effects today. Exactly the sort of 'prolonged mental harm' that torture requires. I guarantee what he underwent was far easier on him than ANYTHING the CIA did. No matter how many people who have undergone it come out and say that it's unequivocally torture, no matter how many organizations who are experts in the matter tell you it's unequivocally torture, you keep clinging to your claim that because of cosmetic changes it's somehow differen't and there's no way to know! What is wrong with your ability to use reason? You can't possibly apply these standards to the rest of your life, because you would be dead by now if you had. How much more evidence needs to be shoved in your face before you can make the rational conclusion?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

This is funny, from the person that can't produce any evidence or real facts. A debate usually has two opinions, with debate of facts and evidence.

You: waterboarding is legal
Us: No, the law says it's illegal
you: wrong, It's different when we do it
Us: <lists extensive case law>
you: wrong, it's legal, I know it is
Us: <more evidence>
You: wrong, you are all liberals and are wrong.

Yup, that's a debate. I like the refusal to list any case law or other evidence, other then your personal theory of "it's different", without any proof to back it up.

But it's DIFFERENT. I JUST KNOW IT IS.

EDIT: Just so you know though, TLC will never admit he is wrong. Ever. I mean hell, even earlier when he made an obviously false claim about there being no court cases on the subject that I called him out on, instead of saying 'I was wrong about that but I still disagree because of X', he just says that the court case was crap anyway.

He's probably just not used to arguing with people who can beat him, and it enrages him when they do.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You know, you clearly aren't in here to debate anything. You come here, insist your opinion is the only valid one, then use all kinds of contortions and misrepresentations of others statements in a pathetically transparent way to do nothing else but villainize and disparage them. Just like Harvey, you can't wait to proclaim that someone is disgusting, a monster, a supporter of torture, blah, blah, blah. It's all about name-calling for you. It's such a lame debating tactic.

You don't have the first clue about me, what I believe, how I think, or what I'm trying to say here. That much is made very, very clear by all your emotionally charged drivel. So stop wasting my time.

This is funny, from the person that can't produce any evidence or real facts. A debate usually has two opinions, with debate of facts and evidence.

You: waterboarding is legal
Us: No, the law says it's illegal
you: wrong, It's different when we do it
Us: <lists extensive case law>
you: wrong, it's legal, I know it is
Us: <more evidence>
You: wrong, you are all liberals and are wrong.

Yup, that's a debate. I like the refusal to list any case law or other evidence, other then your personal theory of "it's different", without any proof to back it up.

I'm no liberal, but how in the hell did standing up for the rule of law get to be "liberal"?

So again, do you support an investigation and prosecution of anyone found to be breaking the law?

Do you think that having 30+ die after torture to be a crime?

Do you believe in the law? You still won't answer the questions.

Does this sound familar? It's from that infamous liberal and well known left winger, Ronald Reagan. What a liberal he was. Don't you support following a law that Reagan himself championed?

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Of course, this is just me posting another factual comment, which you will insultingly ignore and go on with your rants.

Evidence or "real" facts. lol. All I see from you are the same old talking points. Where is your evidence that the CIA waterboarding method will be ruled illegal? It's like exclaiming in the early 1900s, black and women will never get the right to vote. No court has ever allowed it. It's a shallow and stupid argument. Things change, situations change. In the case of CIA waterboarding, courts are presented with a different situation that has not been encountered previously.

btw, you CONTINUE to misrepresent what I am saying. I AM NOT FUCKING SAYING that waterboarding is legal. But your so blinded by your bias that you still can't figure out that little fact. You're so drunk on your own kool-aid that you can't look around and ascertain what I am saying because you have no clue how to respond, which is precisely why you resort to the tiresome old talking points on waterboarding instead. You continue to imagine that you're making some kind of rebuttal to me when all you are doing is looking foolish because you apparently can't quite grasp the points I am making.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Evidence or "real" facts. lol. All I see from you are the same old talking points. Where is your evidence that the CIA waterboarding method will be ruled illegal? It's like exclaiming in the early 1900s, black and women will never get the right to vote. No court has ever allowed it. It's a shallow and stupid argument. Things change, situations change. In the case of CIA waterboarding, courts are presented with a different situation that has not been encountered previously.

btw, you CONTINUE to misrepresent what I am saying. I AM NOT FUCKING SAYING that waterboarding is legal. But your so blinded by your bias that you still can't figure out that little fact. You're so drunk on your own kool-aid that you can't look around and ascertain what I am saying because you have no clue how to respond, which is precisely why you resort to the tiresome old talking points on waterboarding instead. You continue to imagine that you're making some kind of rebuttal to me when all you are doing is looking foolish because you apparently can't quite grasp the points I am making.

No, we're saying your points are dumb.

For the purposes of rational discussion there is zero evidence that the CIA's method of waterboarding materially differed from the types of waterboarding that people were convicted of in the past. Because of this, reasonable people can say that the CIA's methods were almost certainly illegal. While it cannot be said with certainty, not much in life can be. To say that you can't make a determination because you are not 100% certain is silliness, and to apply that standard to everything would make rational discourse impossible.

That's why we are calling you out. Do you have Aspergers or something? (I'm not insulting you, I'm serious) That would explain your difficulty in understanding how people discuss things pretty well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ok... so really all you are saying is; Gonzales, Mukasey, OLC and whichever Legal Scholars supportive of the OLC opinion got it right..

My position is they did not... They did not under any of the Status senarios enjoyed by the detainees... (POW, Criminal etc. under US umbrella or not)

Now for the reasons they did not get it right we need not debate further.. the entire body of legal opinion rendered by folks far more able than you or I have done that for us... We agree or not... It will be for the Final determiners to decide that issue...

So... ergo, I support your right to that view... heck two or more Attorneys General and some top notch lawyers do also... It would seem to me that the Lee case ought to have been dispositive to the chore the OLC was given.

At least we can kind of agree on something.

First, no, I'm not claiming that they got it right. I'm saying they might have gotten it right. I'm not in a position to state my opinion as fact, nor is anyone else in this place.

As far as the legal opinion goes, I don't put a lot of stock into citing the numbers that have spoken out against using waterboarding. Now, I'm not saying their opinion is worthless. No doubt their opinion is as valid as any other opinion. It has to do with the penchant for people to be outspoken when they are against something. People love to bitch. People don't like speaking out in support as much. NHC is one hot-button issue where that is readily apparent. iow, issues, particularly emotional ones, tend to attract detractors in far larger numbers.

All we can do is sit and wait. For whatever reasons, the legal scholars in the Obama admin have chosen, thus far, not to pursue the issue of whether the EITs were legal or illegal. All we can do is assume the why of that as well.