Round one--going after the law license of torturers

[LTC8K6]

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

There is no way to interepret "inserting a glass rod and breaking it" that would comply, imo.

Waterboarding is considerably less certain, imo. The wide variety of opinions demonstrates this. The inability of the AG to decide also demonstrates this.

You will not get much variety when asking about inserting glass rods, imo.

 

[Lemon law]

Where Ferns jumps from, "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."

To here,

"Haven't you claimed to be an attorney? "

Totally baffles me.

For the record, I am not an attorney but have bothered to actually educate myself on some basic's of how the law works.

As for Fern contention that " these filing are mere memo's unlikely to get anyone disbarred and that meanwhile the defndants will not otherwise have attention focused on them, that will be something only the unknowable future will have to answer. I imagine other groups will also jump on to also focus the spotlight.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

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

There is no way to interepret "inserting a glass rod and breaking it" that would comply, imo.

Waterboarding is considerably less certain, imo. The wide variety of opinions demonstrates this. The inability of the AG to decide also demonstrates this.

You will not get much variety when asking about inserting glass rods, imo.

You quoted that waterboarding isn't barred by name in federal statutes to make some sort of point. The fact is that torture statutes are specifically vague as to methodology so as not to allow people to skirt near them the way that the Bushies did. A laundry list of prohibited practices does nothing but incentivize alternative methods so the perpetrator can say, "oh, I didn't know I couldn't rub lemon juice on his open wounds, that wasn't on the list."

For 500 years pre-2002 memos, you couldn't find a person who thought waterboarding wasn't a form of torture. Are there worse tortures, of course. I'd rather be waterboarded than stretched out on a torture wheel, but that doesn't make the lesser torture into 'not torture.' Is getting lightly slapped preferable to getting punched in the face? Sure, but both are assault. The only reason anyone is arguing whether waterboarding is torture or not is because we authorized it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: 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)

Intelligence gathering and interrogations by Senate Bill 3930 must comply with the AFM.

Of course Commander Codpiece issued a signing statement as the *urinary executive* to reserve a torture order to protect us from terror.

Gonzales claimed anti-torture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons. McCain filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

The White House tried to kill the McCain amendment and Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits. Bush threatened to veto the bill but subsequently sucked up to McCain when the bill passed with veto-proof majorities.

And the Supreme Court subsequently said detainees under "effective control" of the US anywhere in the world were subject to the anti-torture laws & provisions.

 

[Lemon law]

What we fail to note is that McCain, did not notice, as GWB sucked up to him, at the same time, the McCain bill was gutted in committee, into a meaningless nothing that protected no one. Of course GWB signed it while the real rats in the basement laughed their heads off saying how dumb can McCain be? Oh McGoo, we got away with it again.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

For the record, I am not an attorney but have bothered to actually educate myself on some basic's of how the law works.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

 

[LTC8K6]

The fact is that torture statutes are specifically vague as to methodology so as not to allow people to skirt near them the way that the Bushies did.

You mean the Government did, since we now know it was hardly "the Bushies" alone who knew and approved...despite the stammering attempts to deny knowledge... we now know that Congress was kept informed.

The laws are vague so you can't skirt near them? Makes no sense at all. Vague laws mean you are more likely to get into trouble, not less.

Besides, if they are so vague, then how are you going to convict anyone of violating them? By your own definition, you can't.

Also, if the law is so vague, then one would need a legal interpretation before proceeding, yet here we are trying to convict people for attempting to define what you yourself just called vague laws.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The fact is that torture statutes are specifically vague as to methodology so as not to allow people to skirt near them the way that the Bushies did.

You mean the Government did, since we now know it was hardly "the Bushies" alone who knew and approved...despite the stammering attempts to deny knowledge... we now know that Congress was kept informed.

The laws are vague so you can't skirt near them? Makes no sense at all. Vague laws mean you are more likely to get into trouble, not less.

Besides, if they are so vague, then how are you going to convict anyone of violating them? By your own definition, you can't.

Also, if the law is so vague, then one would need a legal interpretation before proceeding, yet here we are trying to convict people for attempting to define what you yourself just called vague laws.

I agree, "skirt near" was awkward phrasing. I meant torture methods are not itemized for the clear purpose of preventing a party from claiming that their particular interrogation method is not torture because it's not specifically barred by statute.

As I said, the law is left vague "as to methodology" of torture, not as to the standard. The rest of your post takes this basic misunderstanding and runs with it. This is not my theory, btw, it's the articulated motivation of the drafters of the UN Convention Against Torture, and the US Code adopted identical language for no doubt the same reason. Your claim that the laws intentionally vague as to the method of torture conducted are therefore not prosecutable is invalid.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-...law/page.do?id=1107981

The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained:

''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.''

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

The fact is that torture statutes are specifically vague as to methodology so as not to allow people to skirt near them the way that the Bushies did.

You mean the Government did, since we now know it was hardly "the Bushies" alone who knew and approved...despite the stammering attempts to deny knowledge... we now know that Congress was kept informed.

The laws are vague so you can't skirt near them? Makes no sense at all. Vague laws mean you are more likely to get into trouble, not less.

Besides, if they are so vague, then how are you going to convict anyone of violating them? By your own definition, you can't.

Also, if the law is so vague, then one would need a legal interpretation before proceeding, yet here we are trying to convict people for attempting to define what you yourself just called vague laws.

I agree, "skirt near" was awkward phrasing. I meant torture methods are not itemized for the clear purpose of preventing a party from claiming that their particular interrogation method is not torture because it's not specifically barred by statute.

As I said, the law is left vague "as to methodology" of torture, not as to the standard. The rest of your post takes this basic misunderstanding and runs with it. This is not my theory, btw, it's the articulated motivation of the drafters of the UN Convention Against Torture, and the US Code adopted identical language for no doubt the same reason. Your claim that the laws intentionally vague as to the method of torture conducted are therefore not prosecutable is invalid.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-...law/page.do?id=1107981

The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained:

''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.''

See this is the problem with Internet. People assume because some website said certain thing, it must be the law and there is no debate about it.

I have every respect on what amnesty international try to accomplish, but it doesn't mean everything on their website is the final word. It is their interpretation and they are no mean the judge and the jury on torture and war crime. Their approach the war with very different point of view from, let's say CIA and Pentagon. Who is right and who is wrong? Unless you go through the judiciary proceedings, there is no way to find out.

You people who categorically say people involved in this torture business are guilty without due processes by just looking at the website that favors certain view is only only bias, but dishonest.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: rchiu
See this is the problem with Internet. People assume because some website said certain thing, it must be the law and there is no debate about it.

I have every respect on what amnesty international try to accomplish, but it doesn't mean everything on their website is the final word. It is their interpretation and they are no mean the judge and the jury on torture and war crime. Their approach the war with very different point of view from, let's say CIA and Pentagon. Who is right and who is wrong? Unless you go through the judiciary proceedings, there is no way to find out.

You people who categorically say people involved in this torture business are guilty without due processes by just looking at the website that favors certain view is only only bias, but dishonest.

Does every one of your posts have to mischaracterize the person you're responding to?

I wasn't citing them for determinative fact on anything. I was pointing out that it is widely understood why torture techniques are not categorized in statutes, and that torture has been successfully prosectuted despite the lack. I never claimed they are the final word on anything, I never claimed the attorneys drafting these memos don't deserve a trial, and no, I'm not going to withhold my opinions citing valid evidence to support them because you feel you have imperfect knowledge on the issue. I'm not saying there is no other side, I'm saying I've read the other sides' arguments and found them seriously lacking.

I don't need amnesty international to tell me that a torture technique employed for 500 years is still a torture technique even if a lawyer writes a memo saying it isn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its also time to dispose of the analysts poor excuse cop out, partially posed by GenX87 who said, " They were analysts who gave a legal opinion that said water boarding is not torture under our laws. "

I am willing to bet you that I might get a few layers in the USA to verbally tell me that there may be ways to arguably make bank robbery legal under the laws of the USA, but I bet you you won't find a single lawyer in the USA with a law license to put it in writing.

And even if I found such a fool, I would not go rob banks because I would know the defense would not hold up in court. ( Needed only in the events I get caught. )

Now on the other hand, after the crime is committed, attorney are the most innovate SOB's on the planet in coming up with a defense argument after the fact, things like the hostess twinkie defense springs to mind.

But GenX87, must have lost the difference between a legal opinion or a defense, being not valid until affirmed by a court. And someone else can also give you an opinion you can jump off tall buildings in a single bound and fly, but when you go splat on teh sidewalk instead, a blame much also attach to those who gave the advice.

You love irrelevant and stupid analogies dont you?

Robbing a bank is clearly illegal and has been on the books for how long?
Telling somebody jumping off an office building is safe goes against all common sense which the jumper should use.

Not really.

Enhanced interrogation techniques and policies on rendition were formed based upon these opinions even as members of the military and intelligence community said they were not legal.

No matter how you spin it - these maneuverings were intended to present a legal justification for rendition, torture or cruel and inhumane acts that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.

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?

As Jonks said, they are not going after them for a difference of opinion. A requirement of all lawyers giving legal advice to their clients is that they operate in good faith and give their opinions to the best of their ability, and without bias towards an outcome. Furthermore, they are required to perform the due diligence to determine that the opinions they are putting forth have a reasonable factual and statutory basis.

These memos were so shockingly poorly reasoned, so ignorant of basic case law, and so lax in their analysis of opposing arguments that there is a reasonable basis to say that either these lawyers were so unethical that they should be sanctioned, or so incompetent that they should not be permitted to practice.

 

[JSt0rm]

after reading the first page its funny the local neocons are defending these people lol. They will have their day in court. If they are innocent let them tell a judge. Lawyers have to be very careful about giving out this kind of advice for this very reason.

 

[Double Trouble]

Hate to break up this little lefty tizzy, but you guys realize thousands of complaints are filed each year, and only a tiny tiny fraction actually result in anything meaningful happening. The burden of showing that the lawyers acted in such a way that they should be disbarred is extremely high, and is generally reserved for cases of corruption, contempt of court, disobeying court orders and the like.

These complaints are meaningless.

 

[AFMatt]

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.

That was added to the newly revised AFM, published in September 2006.

 

[Lemon law]

Somehow Double Trouble somehow hits the nail on the head while pretending to miss it in saying, "The burden of showing that the lawyers acted in such a way that they should be disbarred is extremely high, and is generally reserved for cases of corruption, contempt of court, disobeying court orders and the like."

Yep, Double Trouble, these are exactly the kind of issues that cry corruption, contempt of Court, all you mention, and ever so much more. Be it resolved, all honest attorneys should take action to distance themselves from the morally bankrupt among them, by the proper action in this case, namely disbarment from the practice of law for these GWB&co torture attorneys.

IF these morally bankrupt idiots do not meet the EXTREMELY MORALLY BANKRUPT test, then no one does.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Somehow Double Trouble somehow hits the nail on the head while pretending to miss it in saying, "The burden of showing that the lawyers acted in such a way that they should be disbarred is extremely high, and is generally reserved for cases of corruption, contempt of court, disobeying court orders and the like."

Yep, Double Trouble, these are exactly the kind of issues that cry corruption, contempt of Court, all you mention, and ever so much more. Be it resolved, all honest attorneys should take action to distance themselves from the morally bankrupt among them, by the proper action in this case, namely disbarment from the practice of law for these GWB&co torture attorneys.

IF these morally bankrupt idiots do not meet the EXTREMELY MORALLY BANKRUPT test, then no one does.

Lemon, you're falling prey to letting the emotional argument override legal analysis. First, I'm not aware of any "morally bankrupt" test. Further, there is absolutely no possibility of "contempt of court" in this case since there has been no court action: the lawyers were asked to provide a legal opinion, and they did. All the evil torturers, GWB & co blah blah blah means absolutely nothing when it comes to disbarment procedures, since the lawyers had nothing to do with that, they simply rendered a legal opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think these guys are scum for what was done, but these actions are just symbolic, they're not going anywhere. Like I said, the burden on proving "incompetence to practice" etc in such cases is very high.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

Actually, it can provide for defense against a crime by proving innocent 'intent'. They don't have these staff for fun, they have an important function.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

Obviously. Every case has at least 2 lawyers with different "opinions".

You're confusing a trial with the Justice Department's advisory role.

 

[LTC8K6]

Your claim that the laws intentionally vague as to the method of torture conducted are therefore not prosecutable is invalid.

Ummm....That was your claim, that you twisted into my example. I don't think the law is very vague at all. I just used the example of not being prosecuted to show how silly your claim of vagueness was.

I think the legal opinion was sought under political pressure, not because anyone actually thought waterboarding qualified as torture.

Be that as it may, I see no room for any agreement here.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: jonks

For 500 years pre-2002 memos, you couldn't find a person who thought waterboarding wasn't a form of torture. Are there worse tortures, of course. I'd rather be waterboarded than stretched out on a torture wheel, but that doesn't make the lesser torture into 'not torture.' Is getting lightly slapped preferable to getting punched in the face? Sure, but both are assault. The only reason anyone is arguing whether waterboarding is torture or not is because we authorized it.

of course your generalizing here becuase of course you have no evidence that EVERYONE agreed with your position before this happened.

without even giving my own opinion on the matter, its pretty clear that your examples illustrate that people defining torture will vary greatly based on their own moral objections/opinions. Now if your talking about official laws, etc, then sure, you can make the claim that certain things have always been barred, etc. But talking about the majority opinion, your going to find that there are alot of gray areas. There is certainly levels of torture where Id say 90% of people agree is wrong, but waterboarding seems to be one of those gray areas.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: trooper11
There is certainly levels of torture where Id say 90% of people agree is wrong, but waterboarding seems to be one of those gray areas.

Then you would be wrong. US citizens have been arrested and convicted for waterboarding for many years. Look it up.

We have convicted US civilians (local law enforcement), US military, and foreign military for waterboarding.

Now you may think it's OK, but that doesn't make it so. Some people still believe the earth is flat, but just because some people believe that, it doesn't make it true.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: trooper11
There is certainly levels of torture where Id say 90% of people agree is wrong, but waterboarding seems to be one of those gray areas.

Then you would be wrong. US citizens have been arrested and convicted for waterboarding for many years. Look it up.

We have convicted US civilians (local law enforcement), US military, and foreign military for waterboarding.

Now you may think it's OK, but that doesn't make it so. Some people still believe the earth is flat, but just because some people believe that, it doesn't make it true.

whoa there. first of all, refrain from putting words in my mouth. Im not sure if you are saying I thought waterboarding was ok, but I didnt say anything of the sort.

and, if you read my whole post, then you will see where I clearly said that there have been and currently exist, laws that define what is torture. I was refering to what actual people believe and that there are varied opinions on the matter.

 

[jackschmittusa]

trooper11

The only gray area is a fabrication by those who want to use it. The waterboardee has no such doubts. Waterboarding is used to produce a fear of imminent death. The body produces an automatic reaction to apparent drowning. It has long been considered torture for good reason.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: trooper11
of course your generalizing here becuase of course you have no evidence that EVERYONE agreed with your position before this happened.

Find me a discussion of the practice of waterboarding before 2002 that doesn't use the word torture and I'll revise my point. You might have trouble since before 2002 the practice wasn't known as waterboarding, it was called "forced drowning" or, wait for it, "the water torture".

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Your claim that the laws intentionally vague as to the method of torture conducted are therefore not prosecutable is invalid.

Ummm....That was your claim, that you twisted into my example. I don't think the law is very vague at all. I just used the example of not being prosecuted to show how silly your claim of vagueness was.

The UN Convention on Torture doesn't bar individual tortures by name. Why does it not list individual tortures? Because it doesn't want to provide a defendant with some plausible deniability that the torture he committed was outside the scope of the law since it wasn't specifically mentioned. Thus, IT IS VAGUE AS TO INDIVIDUAL TORTURE METHODS. You said you don't think the law is "vague", but if the wordchoice is what's causing a problem then perhaps you'd accept that by omitting specific acts the law becomes "broader" by stating only the standard.

As to you claiming that vagueness by design is "silly", I posted the Red Cross's explanation for the wording of the statute. This is not a statutory phenomenon. Legislatures often draft statutes which are intentionally vague as to certain particulars when they wish to avoid narrow interpretations. Similarly, when a statute is drafted that does list particulars and doesn't specify them as merely illustrative, then the law applies only to those particulars. expressio unius est exclusio alterius. When seeking to avoid any confusion on the matter, lists are assiduously avoided.

 

[LTC8K6]

So we should take legal action against the UN then? And against those who wrote the US Code version? Actually writing a law that deliberately allows torture has got to be a more serious violation then giving an opinion about said law.

Let's see what other laws are vague* enough to allow a crime to be committed...and who wrote them...and who may have given legal opinions about them...

*For various definitions of "vague" at various entity's discretions.