Round one--going after the law license of torturers

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/05/023570.php

I hope they call Holder, because he doesn't know...

There's a difference between not knowing and poorly articulating. This was a Q&A and off the top of his head he didn't articulate well the difference between SERE training and interrogation.

Probably why we don't write our laws by having a bunch of people standing in a room with a stenographer taking down their thoughts and then stamping "The Law" on the transcript.

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

to this day federal torture law leaves waterboarding unmentioned.

seriously weak argument. Man can devise limitless ways of torturing a person, you're telling me we need to list them all in statute or they're legal? Huh, inserting a glass rod into the urethra and shattering it isn't specifically barred by statute, guess we can go there.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Ah yes, on the hunt and any meat will do.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Ah yes, on the hunt and any meat will do.

That's what Bill said! *rimshot*

EDIT: That's what Dick said! *rimshot*

 

[PokerGuy]

Anyone can file a suit, for any reason. These suits are not going anywhere, just a bunch of whiners trying to make something happen because they are starting to realize that Obama is smart enough not to touch the issue with a ten foot pole.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
GenX87 asks, "Everybody has an opinion. Some in the intelligence and military community most likely did object. But what does that have to do with people rendering an opinion based on our laws at the time of the opinion?"

Because an opinion is not a fact, there are higher arbiters of fact than those mental midgets rendering the opinion, and GenX87
also does not understand the difference between criminal and civil law.

In civil law where it deals with the non criminal damages our actions may cause another, the standards of proof are different, namely just the preponderance of the evidence. My attorney may advise me and go ahead, build that fence even if I know the neighbor may object, but any honest lawyer will also tell me some other entity may take me to court and the court may order that fence be torn down. In short, civil law opinions are just that, opinions about how a court may rule. And as such, learned opinions but not guarantees.

Criminal law is different, even if it also deals with the wrongs we do to another, it basically deals with actions that were proscribed by law definitely illegal before the action took place. Even if the law makes distinction between premeditated murder and murder done in an emotional heat of the moment, murder in the eyes of the law is always wrong before the fact. And the standards of proof are also different, in US criminal law you must be guilty beyond the shadow of doubt.

What we have here is a group of ethically challenged attorneys getting together, and conspiring on a pre-meditated basis to rewrite existing US torture laws. Something they do not have the authority or legal standing to do. They may have an opinion, but its still the de facto opinions of a criminal until authorized by an open court proceeding THEY SO FORGOT TO USE TO LEGITIMIZE THEMSELVES. And since torture involves both US domestic and international law, both US and international courts must agree or the
opinions of those attorney who authorized torture are not worth the paper they are printed on. As these attorneys had to be smart enough to realize beforehand.

Now who will tell me, by any analysis, that those attorneys who authorized torture should be allowed to retain their law licenses?

I cannot tell you as I have no experience nor knowledge in international war crime law. I hope you have some experience and knowledge for the basis of your charges. If not, you are just wasting our time with another opinion.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

to this day federal torture law leaves waterboarding unmentioned.

That would be incorrect.

Holding someone in detention requires following the Army Field Manual for interrogations.

The AFM lays out 19 interrogation techniques permitted by law and prohibits nine categories of others, including waterboarding.

Part Two, Chapter 5

5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to?

? Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
? Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
? Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
? ?Waterboarding.?
? Using military working dogs.
? Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
? Conducting mock executions.
? Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The memos demonstrate that these lawyers are either grossly incompetent, or willfully generated bogus legal opinions that they knew would be used as a shield to commit illegal acts.

Sorry, but either of these suggests that these people do not deserve a law license.

 

[sactoking]

My guess is, barring a dramatic shift in USSC composition, these attempts will end up the same way Ashcroft v Iqbal did.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

to this day federal torture law leaves waterboarding unmentioned.

That would be incorrect.

Holding someone in detention requires following the Army Field Manual for interrogations.

The AFM lays out 19 interrogation techniques permitted by law and prohibits nine categories of others, including waterboarding.

Part Two, Chapter 5

5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to?

? Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
? Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
? Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
? ?Waterboarding.?
? Using military working dogs.
? Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
? Conducting mock executions.
? Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

Is the AFM federal law? (irrelevant anyway, per my post above)

 

[Lemon law]

Rchiu uses a smokescreen hokus pokus argument with, "I cannot tell you as I have no experience nor knowledge in international war crime law. I hope you have some experience and knowledge for the basis of your charges. If not, you are just wasting our time with another opinion."

Notice what is bogus here, when only gold standard is having BOTH domestic and international courts agreeing with the legal opinions of these torture lawyers, Rchiu pleads ignorance of international law and then magically concludes since he has no understanding of international law, these white house lawyers must prevail on domestic law??????????????????????????????

To make a valid argument Rchiu must have BOTH domestic and international courts ruling with his side of the argument, and in facts has NEITHER domestic or international courts on his side.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rchiu uses a smokescreen hokus pokus argument with, "I cannot tell you as I have no experience nor knowledge in international war crime law. I hope you have some experience and knowledge for the basis of your charges. If not, you are just wasting our time with another opinion."

Notice what is bogus here, when only gold standard is having BOTH domestic and international courts agreeing with the legal opinions of these torture lawyers, Rchiu pleads ignorance of international law and then magically concludes since he has no understanding of international law, these white house lawyers must prevail on domestic law??????????????????????????????

To make a valid argument Rchiu must have BOTH domestic and international courts ruling with his side of the argument, and in facts has NEITHER domestic or international courts on his side.

heh so what are we waiting for, let's not only take away their license, let's put them in jail already as you already find them guilty as the judge and the jury. This is the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can talk like he/she knows what the f they are talking about but in fact very few does.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rchiu uses a smokescreen hokus pokus argument with, "I cannot tell you as I have no experience nor knowledge in international war crime law. I hope you have some experience and knowledge for the basis of your charges. If not, you are just wasting our time with another opinion."

Notice what is bogus here, when only gold standard is having BOTH domestic and international courts agreeing with the legal opinions of these torture lawyers, Rchiu pleads ignorance of international law and then magically concludes since he has no understanding of international law, these white house lawyers must prevail on domestic law??????????????????????????????

To make a valid argument Rchiu must have BOTH domestic and international courts ruling with his side of the argument, and in facts has NEITHER domestic or international courts on his side.

heh so what are we waiting for, let's not only take away their license, let's put them in jail already as you already find them guilty as the judge and the jury. This is the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can talk like he/she knows what the f they are talking about but in fact very few does.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rchiu uses a smokescreen hokus pokus argument with, "I cannot tell you as I have no experience nor knowledge in international war crime law. I hope you have some experience and knowledge for the basis of your charges. If not, you are just wasting our time with another opinion."

Notice what is bogus here, when only gold standard is having BOTH domestic and international courts agreeing with the legal opinions of these torture lawyers, Rchiu pleads ignorance of international law and then magically concludes since he has no understanding of international law, these white house lawyers must prevail on domestic law??????????????????????????????

To make a valid argument Rchiu must have BOTH domestic and international courts ruling with his side of the argument, and in facts has NEITHER domestic or international courts on his side.

heh so what are we waiting for, let's not only take away their license, let's put them in jail already as you already find them guilty as the judge and the jury. This is the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can talk like he/she knows what the f they are talking about but in fact very few does.

we're waiting for the trial, thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Lemon law]

After being being totally wrong on the prior argument Rchiu comes back with, "heh so what are we waiting for, let's not only take away their license, let's put them in jail already as you already find them guilty as the judge and the jury. This is the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can talk like he/she knows what the f they are talking about but in fact very few does."

Taking away the law licenses of unethical attorneys is a complaint anyone can file. The arbiter will be basically the bar associations.
And not every case turns out the complaint's way, but filing it in court is a way of Forcing the ruling will be made in writing.

But in terms of filing criminal charges, only designated US prosecutors authorized by law and in the correct jurisdiction can actually have the legal standing to file a criminal charge in a court of law. Its not up to the victim, but if still alive, the victim can ask a prosecutor to file a criminal charge against some perp that did them wrong. But regardless of what the victim says, its the "state" filing the charge, and there are cases where the victim asks for no filed criminal charges against the perp, but the prosecutor files anyway.

 

[Lemon law]

Jonks says, "we're waiting for the trial, thought that was pretty clear."

So am I, but these filed complaints may speed that day when charges are filed, they cannot lead directly to those charges because the parties are not state sanctioned prosecutors. If nothing else it air their dirty laundry in public and will help speed the day actual criminal charges are filed. But if Obama will not lead, others will start the process.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Jonks says, "we're waiting for the trial, thought that was pretty clear."

So am I, but these filed complaints may speed that day when charges are filed, they cannot lead directly to those charges because the parties are not state sanctioned prosecutors. If nothing else it air their dirty laundry in public and will help speed the day actual criminal charges are filed. But if Obama will not lead, others will start the process.

I was referring to rchiu's strawman about just putting them in jail already, which would be an unlawful bypass of the constitutional right to a trial. I'm sure I could put together a memorandum of law that says it's unnecessary in this particular case but that would be patently ridiculous wouldn't it. oh.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
After being being totally wrong on the prior argument Rchiu comes back with, "heh so what are we waiting for, let's not only take away their license, let's put them in jail already as you already find them guilty as the judge and the jury. This is the beauty of the Internet. Anyone can talk like he/she knows what the f they are talking about but in fact very few does."

Taking away the law licenses of unethical attorneys is a complaint anyone can file. The arbiter will be basically the bar associations.
And not every case turns out the complaint's way, but filing it in court is a way of Forcing the ruling will be made in writing.

But in terms of filing criminal charges, only designated US prosecutors authorized by law and in the correct jurisdiction can actually have the legal standing to file a criminal charge in a court of law. Its not up to the victim, but if still alive, the victim can ask a prosecutor to file a criminal charge against some perp that did them wrong. But regardless of what the victim says, its the "state" filing the charge, and there are cases where the victim asks for no filed criminal charges against the perp, but the prosecutor files anyway.

Of course, what else can we expect from all knowing Lemon Law. He begins with "And at least these lawsuits targets the worst of the worst, the morally bankrupt who only fooled themselves into thinking torture could be ever legally justified in the USA or in the modern world." like it's forgone conclusion that the whole torture thing is illegal without the case going through any legal process. In addition, I haven't seen a shred of qualification for him to make such judgment. and now he is claiming I am totally wrong without any fact.

Thanks again for your opinion.

 

[LTC8K6]

That would be incorrect.

I'm sure it's pretty for you to think so, but I was quoting the article anyway, and it was correct despite your AFM reference.

 

[LTC8K6]

inserting a glass rod into the urethra and shattering it isn't specifically barred by statute

AFAIK it is. Of course it's ususally too much trouble to look things up. Again I also reference Holder's "intent" clause and his lack of certainty about waterboarding.

§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter?
(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Skitzer and GenX87 positions duly noted, these are filed in court lawsuits, and the fat is in the fire, and some entity will have to rule. Obama will not be even in the loop, or be the decider.

Haven't you claimed to be an attorney?

These are NOT "filed in court lawsuits", they are complaints filed with the lawyers' various Bar Associations (depending on where they practice).

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
If nothing else it air their dirty laundry in public and will help speed the day actual criminal charges are filed. But if Obama will not lead, others will start the process.

IIRC, Bar Associations do not release information on complaints (The NC Bar does not). I.e., "dirty laundry" will not be aired.

I see no way whatsoever that filing a complaint with the bar will help speed any criminal charges, the memos are publically available thus federal and state prosecutors already have access to them etc.

Seems highly unlikely the drafting of memos will get anybody disbarred. From what I've seen, even legitimate complaints to a bar rarely result in anything more than a slap on the wrist.

Fern

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc..._I_CH_113C_SE_2340.pdf

 

[Lemon law]

Rchiu now says " and now he is claiming I am totally wrong without any fact. "

Wrong, I am saying the imaginary defenses and various legal arguments you have made have no basis in law and showed exactly where you made your bad assumptions. You can have a right to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. You advanced some dubious and poorly reasoned arguments and they got shot down. End of story. Neither you nor I will be the ultimate arbiter of the thread decision.

Its really a side issue to the actual thread argument, for the sake of the defendants named in the suit, they are better advised to not use those Rchiu arguments that will get similarly shot down and lead no where.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

inserting a glass rod into the urethra and shattering it isn't specifically barred by statute

AFAIK it is. Of course it's ususally too much trouble to look things up.

get back to me when you come across it. I'd like to read it.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...-folks-not-liable.html

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

Yes

That makes no sense.

They gave their opinion on the matter. If it was/is so clear cut right or wrong they wouldn't have been asked to interpret it.

Well the question is, were they asked to interpret it, or were they instructed to construct memoranda legally justifying whatever actions they were told were being used to provide the admin CYA?

Further, assuming it's a good faith opinion, is it legally sound, or is it so far out of whack that it constitutes malpractice?

Just take waterboarding as an example. This is a torture practice engaged in by the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Inquisition, and other regimes. It has always been viewed as torture. Labeling it "enhanced interrogation" doesn't negate centuries of common knowledge. So if a legal memorandum says "no, it's not torture" when it's commonly understood to be torture, one has to wonder at the competence of the legal analysis, or the motivation of the drafter.

Either way, the main defense I've seen offered is that in the months after 9/11, if someone asked you if it was ok to pour water on a guy who might be able to provide info to prevent another attack, would you say it was ok? And, the answer is probably yes, and worse. But for everyone who is worried about the precendent of holding people reacting to a crisis accountable to their actions, isn't that a good thing? Won't that make people maybe think a little, after the next crisis, that they can't use the circumstances of the moment to justify clearly illegal activity? It's understandable what was done, but it is not justified.

I understand but if the lawyers were asked to give their 'good faith' opinion and came up with it there is no foul. If they were asked to construct CYA material for the administration they were doing their job. Either way, I don't think think it gives the administration a pass.