Sept. 11 planner waterboarded 183 times
Anyone think water boarding was still an interrogation technique after 50, 100 times? Maybe just plain abuse. Hard to imagine how much new stuff they expected to get on the 183rd try.
Sept. 11 planner waterboarded 183 times
Anyone think water boarding was still an interrogation technique after 50, 100 times? Maybe just plain abuse. Hard to imagine how much new stuff they expected to get on the 183rd try.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Stop reaching. The Bybee memo challeneged a single contention and ultimately didn't have any impact on stopping the techniques that were used at the time. You tossed me a boogeyman. I called you on it. Try again.
You said the only people who thought the memos were poorly reasoned were 'the left'. I showed you that the memos were considered so incredibly badly reasoned that the OLC felt compelled to do something it very rarely does, retract its own legal analysis within the same administration.
You're just trying to focus the discussion on something different because you know you can't win this.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Whoever who is in power will try to get away with as much as they can, but it is possible to "cross the line" and if they do cross the line they need to be taken to task for doing so.
That is why we have 3 branches of goverment.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Yeah, changing one facet of the memos that ultimately didn't affect the application of any of the interrogation techniques demonstrates that the OLC believed the memos were "poorly reasoned." Sheesh. Talk about poorly reasoned.
And once again you seem to be stuck on winning. Dude, neither of us are getting an award for this discussion, no matter the outcome.
For those who only think the "left" are the"only" people upset about this issue are blinded by reality and playing the "blame the liberals" game. Many critical thinking people on the right who care about rule of law and our treaty obligations wanted this. Many collegues of mine who are lawyers and very solidly conservative are very upset about this, and not so much about the torture techniques themselves persay, but how the DoJ was able to manipulate legal opinion and set it into motion.
The lawyers advising the Administration played a decisive role in subverting the system of international rules that should have protected all detainees from this treatment. Anyone who has studied law knows this is a system the US has done so much to put in place. This was no accident or mere oversight. Nor was it a case of responding to a legitimate request that came up from the ground level interrogators at Gunatanamo, as the Bush Administration would have us believe.
If the OLC advice was patently wrong, and if the lawyers in question knew it was - or perhaps even if their legal advice was merely reckless, cf. the Lawyers Case at Nuremburg - then that would raise very interesting, thorny issues about the criminal culpability of the advice-givers.
September 11 gave rise to a conscious decision to set aside international laws & constraining interrogations. That decision was motivated by by a combination of factors including fear and ideology and an almost visceral disdain for international obligations. The decision was never subjected to critical scrutiny: if anyone asked what the incidental consequences might be, the answers were ignored.
It is widely acknowledged that Obama encountered and overcame considerable, extremely powerful and entrenched opposition to releasing these memos, particularly in their essentially unredacted form. If the pragmatic political and institutional cost for this crucial release was immunity from prosecution for those least culpable, that seems, IMHO, a fair price to pay for a thorough investigation and fearless prosecution of those who are, inarguably, most culpable.
The lawyers advising the Administration played a decisive role in subverting the system of international rules that should have protected all detainees from this treatment. Anyone who has studied law knows this is a system the US has done so much to put in place. This was no accident or mere oversight. Nor was it a case of responding to a legitimate request that came up from the ground level interrogators at Gunatanamo, as the Bush Administration would have us believe.
If the OLC advice was patently wrong, and if the lawyers in question knew it was - or perhaps even if their legal advice was merely reckless, cf. the Lawyers Case at Nuremburg - then that would raise very interesting, thorny issues about the criminal culpability of the advice-givers.
September 11 gave rise to a conscious decision to set aside international laws & constraining interrogations. That decision was motivated by by a combination of factors including fear and ideology and an almost visceral disdain for international obligations. The decision was never subjected to critical scrutiny: if anyone asked what the incidental consequences might be, the answers were ignored.
It is widely acknowledged that Obama encountered and overcame considerable, extremely powerful and entrenched opposition to releasing these memos, particularly in their essentially unredacted form. If the pragmatic political and institutional cost for this crucial release was immunity from prosecution for those least culpable, that seems, IMHO, a fair price to pay for a thorough investigation and fearless prosecution of those who are, inarguably, most culpable.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'm not claiming that the left are the only people upset about this. What I said was it was the left that pushed the public opinion shitstorm over the issue. It wasn't the right who opposed this who were howling and whining incessantly.
Of course Obama encountered opposition to this. Releasing these memos has effectively neutered our use of interrogation techniques now. Congrats. Those who pushed to have these memos placed in the public eye better pray this doesn't come back to bite them in the ass further down the road. There'll be an entirely new shitstorm if that happens.
No, the head of the OLC saying they were poorly reasoned demonstrates that the OLC believed the memos were poorly reasoned. They also didn't shift their definitions of what 'torture' was because they were bored.
Outside of that, the analysis of the later memos shows that they relied upon evidence only from the agency that sought the opinion as to what constituted torture, another huge conflict of interest no-no.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Hm. Let's go all the way back 3 pages to see who said what.
So, Craig said torture doesn't need to cause "lasting harm" to qualify as torture, TLC disagreed and said "it does" require lasting harm to qualify as torture. Many disgusting techniques that qualify as torture yet cause no lasting harm were cited, and TLC changed the argument to "well we're not doing those things."
But for argument's sake, what if we had done those things TLC? Would they be torture even if they caused no lasting harm? If you answer yes, then your above statement is wrong. If you answer no, then you are claiming electrifying testicles is not torture. Either way you are clearly wrong.
What if we develop the technology to interface directly with the human brain and cause what seems like years of being burned alive, yet the person experiences no long lasting effects when and if they are released? Not torture?
To qualify as "rape", one need only cause the slightest penetratration for an instant. 1/10 of a second or 1 hour gang rape, both are rape. I'm sure if forced to choose which would be done to them most women would choose the former, but that doesn't make it not rape.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
If we had wings, think of the torture potential. If we had no nose or mouth, waterboarding would be a moot point. If OBL hadn't attacked us, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If, if, if , if, if, if, if, if and if.
All the 'ifs' in the fucking world don't matter because they aren't a part and parcel of the techniques that were permitted for use, which are all spelled out in the memos as well.
Sorry that some don't understand the concept of introducing red herrings, slippery slopes, reducing arguments to the absurd, and all of those other ridiculous little tactics. But the what ifs don't matter here. The only thing that matters is what is.
Doesn't it piss you off when someone points to Obama talking about temporarily nationalizing some banks and they scream, "OMG, we're heading for socialism!" It's stupid and it's a knee-jerk reaction of taking an issue to extremes based on pure speculation and fearmongering. Well the same thing is happening with the moronic attempts of introducing eathing shit, drinking piss, and rape into the equation as equivalent t what we did. Unfortunately some people either can't see it or turn a blind eye to it when their side does it. It's only wrong when the other guy trots out that sort of argumentation.
Get real, people.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well now TLC comes back with, " Sorry that some don't understand the concept of introducing red herrings, slippery slopes, reducing arguments to the absurd, and all of those other ridiculous little tactics. But the what ifs don't matter here. The only thing that matters is what is."
And we have to then ask the what was, what is, and what might be questions also.
The fact is, TLC, if these torture questions ever come up in an international or USA national court, I very much doubt the judges will think in the manner you do, and resultant verdict will be go to jail, straight to jail, and we will not waste t8ime with your phony baloney arguments.
Of course I could be wrong, and by some mischance the given judge or judge(s) might think the TLC way, but I think that probability is very very low.
But putting it to the test is the only real way to answer the "what is" question. Even if Obama decides not to prosecute, it binds no judges or prosecutors, either foreign or domestic.
And if some of these GWB&co torture advocates do end up in the slammer for their activities, we will know for sure that you are wrong. It may not stop your crying, but them being in the slammer would still be the object lesson to take away.
And we have to then ask the what was, what is, and what might be questions also.
The fact is, TLC, if these torture questions ever come up in an international or USA national court, I very much doubt the judges will think in the manner you do, and resultant verdict will be go to jail, straight to jail, and we will not waste t8ime with your phony baloney arguments.
Of course I could be wrong, and by some mischance the given judge or judge(s) might think the TLC way, but I think that probability is very very low.
But putting it to the test is the only real way to answer the "what is" question. Even if Obama decides not to prosecute, it binds no judges or prosecutors, either foreign or domestic.
And if some of these GWB&co torture advocates do end up in the slammer for their activities, we will know for sure that you are wrong. It may not stop your crying, but them being in the slammer would still be the object lesson to take away.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I expect eskimospy will be here any second to severely lash you for pretending to guess what anyone in authority might think or do in this case.
Nor am I crying one bit. It's your side that whines incessantly about torture and has a hard-on to see Bush frog-marched, not me. In fact, I'm laughing seeing you put another one of your fantasies into black & white about Bush & Co. going down for this when not a single one of you yet has pointed out where the memos run afoul of the law. Sure, some imaginary judge is going to rule against Bush for some undetermined content in these memos that you can't even pin-point. Sounds very, very convincing.
All the herky-jerky tapdancing you guys have done over the issue has been entertaining though. Here, for your troubles: --> /golfclap
They are legal briefs, genius. The question isn't if they break the law or not, the question is if they provide valid legal and evidentiary support for the arguments they make. They don't. They try to say certain acts don't amount to torture based entirely upon the say-so of the group that the law is intended to regulate. That's called bullshit evidence, and it's not legally supportable.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Look, genius. You make two arguments above.
1) You claim they don't provide the valid legal and evidentary support for the arguments they make.
2) Then you turn around and complain that, wah, it's the same group regulated by the law that is making the determinations, so whatever they say on the subject is bogus.
On point 1, you haven't provided any specific support of that argument other than to say 'Well, certain law professors disagree with the legal viewpoints provided in the memos.' iow, we get a lame appeal to authority from you, nothing more and certainly nothing specific.
On point 2, you better tell Obama that the OLC is wasting their time making determinations of the legality of their actions. It's clearly a conflict of interest according to eskimospy.
1.) Right. The CIA asked if they could do something, and the OLC based its decisions on what the CIA could do based upon the evidence the CIA gave them. Classic conflict of interest. That's completely specific, and it isn't rocket science. Surely even you can understand why that shit doesn't fly.
2.) The Bush OLC did not make determinations as to the legality of their actions, only that they decided which opinions were legally supportable and which were not. If the Obama OLC makes determinations as to the legality of the Bush OLC actions, how would that be a conflict of interest in any way as they are staffed by totally different people? That's like saying Obama can't judge Bush because they were both president.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The other point to make is both Obama and his AG have made the contrary conclusion that these actions were and always were torture.
Buts it is still possible that GWB&co's many minions who committed these alleged torture crimes may escape ever being prosecuted for them. But if that is to be the final word of history on the matter, its still no reason to say those actions were ever legal. Because in the past equally smart smucks only fooled themselves when they tried to rewrite laws and interpretations of laws, and we all know what happened to their sad and sorry butts.
And in the eyes of international laws on the subject, those that knowingly allow or justify torture are as equally as guilty as the person who actually tortures.
Buts it is still possible that GWB&co's many minions who committed these alleged torture crimes may escape ever being prosecuted for them. But if that is to be the final word of history on the matter, its still no reason to say those actions were ever legal. Because in the past equally smart smucks only fooled themselves when they tried to rewrite laws and interpretations of laws, and we all know what happened to their sad and sorry butts.
And in the eyes of international laws on the subject, those that knowingly allow or justify torture are as equally as guilty as the person who actually tortures.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The CIA asked what interrogations methods could be utilized within the law. The OLC responded with the memos. What does this have to do with any evidence? If there was evidence ommitted by the CIA to get the OLC to bend to their lustful desires to torture people, please tell us what that evidence is. In that case, if something like that DID happen, then the CIA would be liable. However, nobody has made that claim, afaik, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
If the OLC felt the opinions were legally supportable then they made a determination as to the legality of their actions. There's no difference there, not even a semantic one.
Nor am I saying anything about Obama's OLC making determinations as to the legality of the Bush memos. Your complaint seems to boil down to 'It's the fox making rules about the henhouse.' If that's the case, what the point of having an OLC in the first place? Wouldn't there always be a conflict of interest when an OLC is crafting a legal memo for their current admin, if what you claim is true?
1.) The 'evidence' used to determine what techniques could be used and if they violated statutes came entirely from the CIA. It's not a question of some scientific study that they included or omitted, they asked the CIA their opinion on the matter, and then used that opinion to say that it didn't violate the statute. It's circular reasoning... and it's complete bullshit.
2.) Wrong. Opinions can be right or wrong, supportable and unsupportable. The method by which you reach an opinion and the way in which you craft it can be legal, or illegal. An argument can easily be unsupportable, yet still legal.
There is no conflict of interest between the OLC and the President whatsoever. They are the President's lawyers that work in the interests of their client. My statements were simply to how legally supportable the arguments the OLC gave, and that's where the conflict of interest came in. The OLC's evidentiary argument is basically: "The CIA's interrogation programs aren't torture, because the CIA told us that they aren't torture." You can't use someone's interpretation of their own actions to base your supposedly objective interpretation of their actions unless you want to end up with a shit result. The OLC did that, and so a shit result is exactly what they ended up with.
You seem not to understand the argument, it's not that the memos are legal or not, it's whether or not they are persuasive. The evidence they used to bolster their arguments fails the basic test of what good evidence is, and so shockingly enough they ended up with unsupportable arguments.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Yeah, knew I should have left off the hypothetical since you'd seize on it to avoid answering the question. Well done. You're still sticking with your original claim that a technique must cause "lasting harm to be torture" even though you've tacitly admitted frying someone's testes would be torture even if they're fine afterwards. It's like talking to someone with split personalities.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The fuck? The memo specifically states:
"Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your posession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts."
If the CIA withheld facts that's an entirely different issue that is outside the bounds of this discussion. I don't even know why you seem so confused about it. It's a completely separate issue.
I have no idea what you've been reading, but the memos don't say or even imply anything of the sort. The memos specifically lay out the OLC's legal opinion as to the legal constraints of the interrorgation techniques. They speel out how the techniques can be used within the law.
btw, I'm really getting tired of your incessant yammering about how I don't understand. You trot out that condescendingly arrogant bullshit frequently to quite a few people in here. Right now all you been doing is trying deperately to throw out any argument against the memos, whether it makes sense or not, to the point of outright speculation. It's clearly you who do not understand and it's getting to the point where you're just making shit up to continue on purely for argumentation sake.
The CIA might have withheld evidence. What a load of horseshit. Just quit if you can't manufacture anything better than that load of manure.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To also restate the argument, its in my original contention of "TLC, torture does not need to cause lasting harm for it to be torture. And that is where you lose the argument."
And TLC snappy comeback of "By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose."
And now we have to ask "whose law" we use, TLC's definition of lets allow GWB to rewrite the law by proxy, or what the letter and spirit of the law was and always was, both domestically and internationally.
Hate to tell you, the illegitimate inflicting of pain is the definition of torture and not lasting damage, and that is why you lose this total argument in a
nutshell. Lasting damage is a separate crime in its own right, and guess what, GWB&co have managed to be guilty of many of those also, up to and including the crime of first degree murder.
And TLC snappy comeback of "By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose."
And now we have to ask "whose law" we use, TLC's definition of lets allow GWB to rewrite the law by proxy, or what the letter and spirit of the law was and always was, both domestically and internationally.
Hate to tell you, the illegitimate inflicting of pain is the definition of torture and not lasting damage, and that is why you lose this total argument in a
nutshell. Lasting damage is a separate crime in its own right, and guess what, GWB&co have managed to be guilty of many of those also, up to and including the crime of first degree murder.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You're wrong, LL, because LL's definition of torture is not the law. US Code is the determining factor in the definition of torture. I've already posted it once but I will post it once more:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us...1_18_10_I_20_113C.html
Now kindly put LL's book of law away and pay attention to what the actual law states.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well well well, pardon me TLC, I was not aware that Cornell University is, was, or ever was the ultimate definer of domestic or international law.
And even then, contained in TLC's link is that little fine print "how current is this? And the answer is, "Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here."
Which is just another way to say that this is just another GWB&co interpretation of the law. You lose, TLC, by your own link.
Congratulations TLC, you are every bit as current as Alberto Gonzales. A fellow so toxic that no one wants anything to do with him.
And even then, contained in TLC's link is that little fine print "how current is this? And the answer is, "Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here."
Which is just another way to say that this is just another GWB&co interpretation of the law. You lose, TLC, by your own link.
Congratulations TLC, you are every bit as current as Alberto Gonzales. A fellow so toxic that no one wants anything to do with him.
sciwizam
Golden Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 1,953
- 0
- 0
:roll:
Yeah, how dare they make it easier to read the United States Code.
From now on everyone should go to the official sites:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go...N=BROWSE&TITLE=18USCPI
Scroll down several hundred pages to find "CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE"
Oh by the way, it says
And if you are going to question who GPO is
I find it quite humorous that some are claiming that water boarding does not cause "lasting damage"
I think that has got to be one of the biggest lies ive seen recently
I think that has got to be one of the biggest lies ive seen recently
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter