“David Davis said a High Court ruling on Wednesday alleged that Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident held in the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, had been tortured.

The judges also said the US threatened to withdraw intelligence help from the UK if details were released.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7870049.stm

Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Patty,

I think because we’ve just had an 8 year long lesson that somethings are too important to be too patient with.
——-

Let’s see what happens this next week or two, OK?
—–
At about the time we were so rudely interrupted, Jerry Nadler was making his remarks re ‘Blubber’s Brain’

Keith talks to Jerrold Nadler about Karl Rove’s claim of executive privilege and whether he will appear before Congress on Monday.

I suggest you take a cue from Dick Armey and simply, “Give it a rest.”

This ought to really get them twisted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/judd-gregg-commerce-secre_n_162378.html

60 seats in the Senate.

GOP… pst! Hey. You napping on the history book!

Give up the guilty now and we’ll let the rest of you pigs stay at the trough. Otherwise, I’m for dissolving your criminal organization in toto. Your survival as a political party is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. I say open the electoral system to any party than can get enough signatures to float a candidate. Have 12 parties. Have 100. Have 200. None of them GOP. Sure, the Dems would be the big dog in the room for awhile, but once the pack shaped up we’d have a nice robust democracy that REQUIRES COOPERATION TO WORK THAT IS NOT REQUIRED IN A TWO PARTY STRUCTURE. See what YOUR collective lessons in stonewalling and obstruction taught? That two parties is no real choice at all. There is NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. This isn’t about “criminalization of policy differences”. This is about putting criminals in your ranks out of business and making them pay for what they have done to this country. OUR country. Not your personal property, government employees. You work for US. And WE have been WRONGED by YOU, THE HIRED HELP. Forget that at your peril, because our memory will not fade until justice rolls across this land like thunder and the ideals of this great land are restored – a beacon of liberty, the pathway to the stars. Camelot? Perhaps. But who is Arthur here? Understand that Arthur didn’t return to power to save the kingdom. He returned to justice and humility to save the kingdom. If you, be you Democrat or Republican, know this lesson, then you can help restore the kingdom, restore the dream that is America, and perhaps save your honor as well. All knights. Or will you take the path of Morgan le Fey? The path of me, Me, ME!

This is the hard reality you face. And somewhere in your black little hearts you know that this is your choice – turn in the PNAC/Neocon crew and survive as a wounded and limping political party or continue to act like greedy swine until something really terrible happens. Something they’ll make movies about if anyone survives, make a holiday, tell the future children as a cautionary tale. Nice choice, eh? Either way you get to be known as “The Party That Destroyed America” so why not save some face and do the right thing. Respect the rule of law. Turn them over. Act like the angels of our better nature and put the common good ahead of your own careers and pocketbooks. Or continue to protect traitors, thieves and tortures under the delusion you clowns are fooling anyone paying attention.

Suck it up, buttercups. The gravy train is coming to the station. You’ve been busted. The choice is how much damage will you inflict on yourselves and others on the way out. It’s a wing dinger of a choice, but it’s YOUR CHOICE.

But now, lay your head back down on that book. It’s time for Little Nemo to return to Slumberland. Go back to sleep. Maybe you’ll absorb some history by osmosis.

Nighty night, PNAC. Go back to sleep, Big Brother. It was only the wind, Little Trolls.

We the People got this covered.

I find your words:They are telegraphing the fears of their masters. So true, comic and tragic. Fear has a heavy grip.

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,234,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,706,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,399,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,381,000
CNN COOPER 1,259,000
CNN KING 1,220,000
CNN BLITZER 1,190,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,135,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,098,000

******************
“Idol” (10.1 rating/25 share, 26.9 million viewers)

It my estimation, your average Idol watcher is about 20 points higher on the IQ scale than your basic Fox watcher, giving one hope for the Republic. Just goes to show you that nobody cares about the neocons when we can see Simon & Paula yuck it up.

I find them somewhat encouraging. They wouldn’t have to disrupt talk of war crimes if they weren’t afraid. They are telegraphing the fears of their masters.

I was kind of expecting this. When you vanquish a persistent, and I’ll have to say, rare, actual PNAC card carrying troll, they’ll try to squat. Pure cut and paste amateur disruption techniques. I believe it was you or mespo who mentioned Nixon’s glorious tradition of “rat f–king”. It’s the equivalent of throwing a tantrum. Dollars to donuts it’s our boy B or a cohort. It also shows theirs was a paid display or they are psychotic. For a PNAC supporter, I do realize the two are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I think it’s funny. Raw desperation from evil people makes me giggle. I’m peculiar that way.

Patty,

I think because we’ve just had an 8 year long lesson that somethings are too important to be too patient with.
——-

Let’s see what happens this next week or two, OK?

I think because we’ve just had an 8 year long lesson that somethings are too important to be too patient with.

Well said. Bush spread manure everywhere.

I don’t think the way to win friends and influence people is to blow in to town with a chip on your shoulder threatening/promising prosecutions when the first thing you need to do is plug the dike with something other than your middle finger, as it were.

What is wrong with just saying “This is what we want’. We understand it can’t be TODAY, but this is our expectation after eight long and disappointing years”…???

I’m not sure how the two are related. How does your not supporting pressure on the administration (by implication, “usually all for it”) relate to Jill changing her mind? If you want to call her hypocritical, okay, that’s your choice, but as a matter of form I’m not seeing a causal connection between (previously/currently) trusting/distrusting Obama and the tactical decision that pressure is the best way to make sure the ball isn’t dropped on the issue of prosecuting war crimes? I’m not being provocative. I just don’t see the relation. I don’t see if for two reasons.

I campaigned for Obama and voted for him. But I don’t trust him much by nature of what he calls his profession – politician. Trust is earned and complete trust is something that should be and rarely is given. I trust him in certain ways, like I trust him to not start a nuclear war over someone else’s real estate issues or to appoint himself Emperor, something I could not say of any Republican candidate, but do I trust him to restore the Constitution without We The People riding him? Absolutely not. His stance on telecom immunity merits watching him alone. Doesn’t mean I’d rather have McSame and the Church Lady or that I want Bush to walk.

And the second reason behind his nature is that the issue is simply just too important to trust ANYONE without blue sky supervision after the abuses of the last 8 years. So I don’t see how that fits in here, constructively.

‘And I think Jill’s right tactically. Pressure is a win-win.’
——-
Keeping up the pressure is one thing. I’m usually all for it!

But that is not been her position. She has been stating, for MONTHS now, that Obama is nothing but a smarmy politician whom she’ll never trust.

Out for blood, she was overdrawn on the ‘O’ Neg before the election!

This compilation called ‘Redefining Torture’ is a good overview of how we started down this path of convolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/themes/redefining.html

“The Geneva convention is not applicable to the detainees at Gitmo due to their own actions.”

******************

That’s a broad statement sort of like saying that the law of Utah doesn’t apply to me living in Virginia. Maybe it will, and maybe it won’t. You need the context and the question. In any event, clearly the Geneva Convention does apply to detainees like bin Laden’s former driver Salim Hamdan, imprisoned at Gitmo and subjected to “trial” by a military commission without a determination under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as to POW status. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the specific question before SCOTUS was, “May the rights protected by the Geneva Conventions be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions filed by Gitmo detainees so affected?” The Court answered in the affirmative. Here’s the opinion summary from Oyez:

“{I]n a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, [the Court] held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan’s exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28916131/

This is why Twain said there were three kinds of lies.

I was heading for estoppel as well, but I like your phrasing better.

As it always will be.

Good luck in 2012.

Buh bye.

““other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” if the Bush admin. lawfully sactioned whatever was done isnt that a get out of jail free card? At this point isnt the arguement about whether or not it was legal to legalize torture?”

*************

The assumption you make is that if the President/Administration says it’s lawful, then it must be lawful. That is erroneous logic and a usurpation of the role of the Courts. Nixon had the same blind spot. Just because a Chief Executive announces that torture is lawful doesn’t make it so, any more than a similar pronouncement about armed robbery would insulate perpetrators. It MAY give the underlings who act in reliance thereon an estoppel argument, but it does not insulate the giver of the order to violate the law. Also under international law, this type of Nuremberg defense has been specifically repudiated. If you are interested, Professor Turley has some very thought-provoking threads about this issue that you can find using the search function on the blog.

And so I ask Jonolan and Bron, etal: Why do they you America so?

I thought about it but since you wouldnt read it anyway why would I bother? And any argument I did make would come from an America is moral prism so my arguments would be ridiculed wether they were cogent or not.

I will put this in a way all of you can understand:

Bad guys bad need to defend against, Russia on rise, China big with big military, Chavez like Russians and China, China operates ports at either end of Panama Canal (Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.). Chavez instigator in South America. Russia has joint manuvers with Venezuela. Iran has nuke, China like Iran oil. China like mineral wealth of Africa. Europe no good to help US at this point.

Big military good, big navy good US need to project power if not redo WWI and WWII and Korea. (only dead see end of war) so large military scare bad guys and keep peace, keep live people live.

free trade good for world, bad guys not like free trade. if bad guys learn to like free trade then bad guys not be so bad.

America not force bad guys to be good that bad. America should not act like policeman for world that bad cost too much money.

if America act like Nazis not good, but America need to project strong front so bad guys think twice. If kid carry bat bully no so eager to fight.

You can all rest assured this is my last posting and as such I have written it in such a manor as to show my utter contempt for your views, the idea that you think you will prevail in bringing Bush to trial for alleged war crimes is laughable at best, it is actually more of a wet dream. I actually thought the left had some intellectuals but since you are all parroting lefty intellectuals I now feel secure in the knowlege that the next 2 years wont be so bad and that in 2010 the congress will be a veto proof conservative majority. Enjoy your time bozos. Your worst nightmare is coming in 2012 an entire government of conservatives both house senate and president. Maybe they will try some of Obama’s cabinet for crimes against economies.

I think the salient issue here is chain of command. It’s not the individual torturers that are import to prosecute although some may deserve it. It’s the one’s who issued the orders. They have no “reasonable reliance” to fall back on.

O.K. you guys got me there. I wouldn’t have thought to look on that thread. I see I did misunderstand the meaning of “undermine” in mespo’s original post. My mistake and I’m sorry. I still have real reservations about Holder and Obama. There are both stating the same thing publically as they are said to claimed privately. The statement:

“But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in ‘reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions’ authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.” and Obama’s statement that he didn’t want “good people looking over their shoulder”, can’t just keep being dismissed as meaningless. This is, in my opinion, the propaganda campaign from the Obama administration trying to seed the public with rationsals for lack of prosecution. It comes from too many people in the admistration and is too consistent to just be random statements from individuals. I am hoping people do not think Obama is incapable of using a propaganda campaign.

Mike A., I did understand your meaning on the R’s questions and agree with your analysis on it.

Mike S., I agree that there is MSM speculation on Holder and Obama just because they don’t have much to do, but JT isn’t part of that and neither are people like me. I worry that Obama supporters are complacent and not questioning authority. This matters because if every person of conscience, supporter or not, doesn’t get off the dime and start screaming right now, Obama will know he can get away with anything. If it’s all a trick, he’ll be glad of the pressure, as it’s a back up for him. As far as I can tell, stong pressure on Obama is a win-win.

We’re still waiting for your reply about why we should all join PNAC. Remember, not your OPINION, but a PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT.

I suspect we’ll be waiting for some time.

The sanctioning of torture is de facto illegal in light of the 8th Amendment, existing statute and case law. You CAN’T decriminalize it without throwing the Constitution out the window. The attempt itself violates the Constitution. The Rove driven conspiracy to stack the DOJ with Regents “lawyers” was an attempt to cover this illegal action.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/md/Public-Affairs/press_releases/press08/FormerFannieMaeContractorEmployeeIndictedForComputerIntrusion.html

“other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” if the Bush admin. lawfully sactioned whatever was done isnt that a get out of jail free card? At this point isnt the arguement about whether or not it was legal to legalize torture?

“Jill, my exchange [regarding Holder] with mespo is on the California prostitute thread for whatever reason.”

*******************

I thought the lawyer turned prostitute thread was the perfect place for that discussion!

So the question I have is can prosecution even take place even if the Obama administration decides to move forward. How hard would it be to prove that they acted “barbarically”?

*********

“Barbaric” is not the legal standard. See 18 USC Sec. 2340 et seq.:

“(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.”

A good rule of thumb is not to let the Press do your legal research for you.

Actually in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld SCOTUS ruled that Article III applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.

Article III reads (I skipped the definition, since SCOTUS rule that all the prisoners in the WOT met that definition and the clauses that aren’t relevant to the discussion on water-boarding):

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

1. Eric Holder would have experienced even more contentious confirmation hearings than he did, and his appointment could have been held up even longer than it has been.

2. Making clear statements too soon that prosecution was a possibility prior to Holder being confirmed and in charge could have led to a wholesale destruction of evidence.

Whether we like it or not, politics is involved here. And while I would agree that there has been a certain coyness on the part of both Obama and Holder, neither of them have clearly taken investigation or prosecution off the table, which means it’s still there. We are just going to have to be patient, get Holder in office and then see what happens.

From another political angle, it might even be better for there to be a bit of reluctance on the Obama administration’s part. They are going to be pressured from internal and external forces. They may be thinking that for it to appear as though they have no choice is better than it appearing that they are gung ho and chomping at the bit.

My ‘listening’ is obviously very different. Give this clip of Holder’s confirmation hearing another try-with different ears.

Common sense tells me that in the first days of the new administration no good purpose would be served by showing up with an obvious prior agenda, such as prosecution (OR invading Iraq), when you’re not yet privy to all the facts AND when your first priority is really to just get yourselves up and running.

Holder: Prosecution BushCo + Presidential Powers Inherent Authority + Guns (Hatch)

So the question I have is can prosecution even take place even if the Obama administration decides to move forward. How hard would it be to prove that they acted “barbarically”?

See US v. Lee as Dredd mentioned. Also see Bugliosi’s book on prosecuting the Bush crime family for murder. There are also the various violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments.

There is more than one way to skin this cat.

The Geneva convention is not applicable to the detainees at Gitmo due to their own actions. We might wish it were applicable for the sake of morality, but it currently isn’t and that is why this situation has been allowed to exist.

Frankly, under the Geneva Convention every one of the “illegal combatants” was a criminal in a warzone and subject to “summary military justice.” That would be field execution ala shoot on sight…

I’m not endorsing the above; I’m merely pointing out that the laws and treaties in question just don’t address this situation.

Glad you’re getting over the glitch. I’ve been wondering why you’ve been so quiet lately.