Torture Works: Cheney Unrolls New Campaign to Justify War Crimes

225px-richard_cheney_2005_official_portraittorture -abu ghraibAfter refusing to release even unclassified materials as Vice President, former Vice President Dick Cheney is now calling for the release of all interrogation reports to show that torture works. This is the same Cheney who supported the denial of such evidence to courts and criminal defendants and Congress. However, now that calls for prosecution for war crimes are increasing, Cheney suddenly believes in transparency in government. In the meantime, Obama has reversed earlier statements and indicated that he will not rule out prosecutions of Bush officials. We discussed this latest development on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.

“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified. . . .I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country. . . .And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

This is part of the new strategy where torture is defended because it works. This is the same argument that I faced yesterday in a debate on NPR with Professor Robert Turner, click here. The media is being sucked into this false debate, debating how successful the torture program was in extracting information. Under domestic and international law, we are not allowed to torture people regardless of how successful it might be. In the same fashion, we are not allowed to beat and torture criminal defendants like Dirty Harry with post hoc rationalizations. International treaties and cases expressly reject such claims.

In his latest round of interviews, <a href=”click here.”>Cheney added “I don’t think we’ve got much to apologize for.” As we have previously discussed on the air, Cheney is the walking example of the dangers of Obama’s policy of blocking any investigation, click here. Not only is Cheney walking around casually discussing war crimes, he is wholly unrepentant. He and others are now trying to corrupt this country’s values even further by defining the issue of war crimes as to whether they resulted in actionable intelligence.

For the Fox News interview, click here.

325 thoughts on “Torture Works: Cheney Unrolls New Campaign to Justify War Crimes

  1. I think that this man, if you can call it that, should have his mental faculties checked. First it does not exist, the papers and now I have seen papers. No wonder he did not want to meet and be sworn so that, if the need arose he would not have committed contempt.

    I am flabbergasted to say the least. I guess this shows you who was really running the show. Like we did not know. Did we not complain of other countries abusive behavior under their respective puppet governments? Would Bush be any exception?

  2. Funny how principle always yields to the self-preservation of these neo-cons. Bring on the war crimes tribunals. I want this man in the dock where he cannot hide, obfuscate, or regally avoid the question. Noblesse oblige, indeed.

  3. Today NPR reported that Obama will keep open his ability to approve interrogation techniques outside the law (for national security of course). I see these two events as deeply connected. Cheney will “prove” how useful torture is and Obama will use the “evidence” to justify his own authorization of torture. They make a great team.

  4. This will lead to violence. Against politicians. Mark my words. This is how the anarchy starts.

  5. So Buddha, in order to protest those who ignored the rule of law and used violence against detainees, people are going to rise up, ignore the rule of law, and use violence against politicians?

  6. Buddha,

    I think honestly, anarchy is already here. The ruling class and their minions have no law. Once the rule of law is broken by them I do think the rest of the legal system will deteriorate. We are already laying off police and prosecutors while pumping money into the police state functions of the govt. It doesn’t bode well for the US.

  7. I’d also like to remind Holder that he works for CITIZENS to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

    Not for Obama.

    Not for Halliburton.

    Not for the Saudis.

    Not for AIPAC.

    Not for lobbyists.

    Not for the CIA.

    U.S. Citizens – your one and only boss, sport.

    Now do your job and investigate and prosecute the war criminals of the Bush administration like a real man would or you can keep acting like “their boy”. Your choice. And like all choices, it has consequences. On one hand, by doing your job, you’d be a hero. On the other, by capitulating to the torturers, you get to be a villain as well as a sellout POS puppet. Think about that duty you swore at bar to defend the Constitution REAL CAREFUL, Eric. Think about the example you could be setting for your children. Do the right thing and give Obama the finger – file charges. If not, enjoy knowing when the shit hits the fan that your lack of spine was a contributory. An American Hero or The Torturer’s Uncle Tom? What’s it gonna be?

  8. Matthew,

    Jefferson said it best –

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    ___

    When the government consistently acts in contravention of the will of the people and, more importantly, the Constitution, it is our duty to tear down the government and hold the bad actors responsible accountable – no matter their party affiliation. I would prefer a more orderly revolution starting at the state government level but the simple fact is that mass media and systematic dumbing down of the populace makes this kind of concerted effort difficult if not impossible. That in no way changes that unequal application of laws has always led to violence. Ergo, anarchy.

  9. lol

    No, AY, I’ve about had enough cake. Although it really is amazing how those supposedly educated people in Washington learned nothing from Marie.

  10. Excellent point Mr. Turley. One that needs to be repeated loudly and often. Torture is illegal and it does not matter what intel you gleened from it. Several former CIA officers have come forward and stated that the detainees responded quite well to non-violent interrogation methods. That tap ran dry once the torture started. The information that was gained through torture almost never panned out and was seriously unreliable. Not to mention it’s not being admissible in court because it was gained through torture. I would be willing to bet that if there is any evidence to back up Mr. Cheney’s claim, the very same intel could have been gained through non-coersive techniques. More likely we the wasted time and effort spent on toruring to satisfy a sadistic Vice President and his warped world-view.

  11. Sorry, that last sentence s/b: More likely we missed out on obtaining actionable intel in our haste to satisfy the sadistic whims of a Vice President and his warped world view.

  12. AY,

    In the spirit of truthful disclosure, it would appear I am going to have cake. Someone brought an angel food cake and left it in the break room. So, cake now, anarchy afterwards.

  13. Criminal Procedure 101: Bad Stop Arrest Detainment beat the shit out of the guy/woman/alien/ illegal alien/ and get information. Ok, I am with you.

    Keep beating the shit out of them and its called torture. Ah yes, but, now that we know where to go and look and we found it. I can proclaim to Jesus and My G-d, That I would have found it anyway. Inevitable Discovery. Ah yes. it does work.

    The Sct said in the Noriga case after he had been prostituted by our Govt. THE 4th Amendment has no protection outside the US.

    This reminds be of the Seat Belt issues. It was sold as a secondary offense after you were stopped for a litigate reason and now its a primary offense.

    Corally 4th Amend not applicable out side, 4th Amend not applicable inside the US. Makes total sense to me.

    Could I have some cake too or if you have any Guyana Punch left over after the party? send some, ya here….

    Now Fucking Texas is at this point is like attending a necrophilia party. Perry had it handed to him last week. I am not sure if they had separated the men from the boys.

    So how do you separate a new representative from a seasoned representative?

    With a crowbar. bada bing

  14. Matthew N:

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    That is why we have the second Amendment! The old boys understood the human soul and therefore provided for the ability of a free citizenry to remain free. I hope you did not think it was for hunting stag on the kings land.

    Our government is quickly descending into an opponent of freedom and as it does it will become more radical in its suppression of individual liberty. We are already seeing it with the report from homeland security about people with Ron Paul bumper stickers or second amendment bumper stickers considered potential enemies of the state. I am awaiting the burning of the “Reichstag” by the communists. Can Krystal Nacht be far behind?

    The fist thing that has got to go in a new government order is the frigging yellow pages solicitations, they are driving me insane. Any lawyers in need of a potential class action suit?

  15. Listened to your On Point appearance yesterday during my morning commute and this is really nagging me…

    A couple of callers touched on the following argument but no one is holding it up. Yes, our troops – citizens, even – are less safe now, but not for the reasons stated by the memos’ defenders. The question is: Why do these defenders believe that it’s okay to perform special interrogation tactics on US miltary personnel – civilians even? They need to be consistently thrown back with the argument that if the US uses “special techniques” to torture, every one else can. As Mr. Shapiro stated, Pakistan is already doing so, in defense of the Taliban.

    SHOUT IT LOUD!!!

  16. With my glasses I sometimes see, the Tag/Headline like this:

    Cheney T. . . rolls:

    Probably need better lenses.

  17. Cheney, among other Bush-era thugs, keep patting themselves on the back that the US wasn’t attacked by terrorists for the remaining seven years of Bush’s evil regime. The first attack on the WTC was in March 1993. The planes went into the towers in September, 2001. Isn’t it fair to say Bill Clinton kept us safe from attack by terrorist for eight years without compromising our nation’s values, principles, treaties and WITHOUT TORTURE!!!!

  18. rcampbell,

    Don’t forget the anthrax terrorist attacks. This means Bill Clinton’s record is better!

    A Patriot Acting,

    Very well said.

  19. As we learned some years ago, Mr. Cheney believes that classified information should never be released unless it is necessary to discredit one’s political opponents. And, of course, he is now free to trumpet his unrepentant attitude because the Obama administration has informed the nation that violations of domestic and international law by the executive branch do not have consequences. Now that we know that no prosecutions will occur, I can only reiterate with disgust the 10 conclusions I set out on the “Obama Orders Release of Secret Memos…” thread. I believe we are looking at a one-term presidency.

  20. Rcampbell:

    that was a good point, I never really thought about it from that perspective. Although we did have Tim McVeigh and the federal building. And I have read that there might be a link to Al Queda through the Phillipines but I think that is sketchy at best.

    Although why hasnt an Al Queda member or members done a suicide raid on any number of soft targets here in the states? I cant figure that one out. 2 dozen highly trained men could wrek havoc on a single day with a dozen co-ordinated attacks. Are they not doing it for public relations? Or is our government really on top of it?

    Although the Japanese never really attacked the west coast, a couple of ballon bombs and they did land in Dutch Harbor but no suicide attacks of civilian targets. And neither did the Germans except for the landings in Florida and New York which they might as well have not even done for all the good it did for the Reich.

    War is a strange animal and truth is the first casualty.

  21. If President Obama and/or AG Eric Holder do not investigate and/or prosecute the people who carried out the torture –

    Nuremberg Principles

    Principle IV

    The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

    UCMJ, Article 90, section (2)(a)(i): Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

    Or wrote the opinions justifying the torture

    Or the higher ups who conceived the torture programs in violation of numerous international treaties and US law

    then they should both be IMPEACHED!!

    If this does not qualify as

    Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I do not know what does.

    Unfortunately Judge Bybee amy not be impeachable

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-21/should-the-judge-who-wrote-the-torture-memos-be-impeached/

  22. Buddha,

    They may have not learned from the French but they certainly have studied more Classical examples… I see no shortage of Bread and Circuses.

  23. I think many of you fail to understand the true implications of this, in your rush to be disappointed. In my view this is the response to a winning strategy of creating a national outcry forcing trials and hearings. Dick Cheney, whose attitude all along has been “Go f**K yourselves” is now beginning to feel the heat and the potential for his and others downfall. We watched these orchestrated strategies from Rove, et. al. before and it is curious that Prof. Turner and others are using the same arguments as our late, unlamented Veep. This new offensive was put together because the cries for justice have been growing and even the awful MSM has joined the hunt. See the NY Times call for Bybee’s impeachment.
    I truly believe we will see justice done and those responsible for these inhumane outrages brought to justice. Call me an “Old
    Fart” if you want, but I’ve lived through enough of these political games to understand what seems apparent often isn’t.

  24. You know, if Cheney wants to declassify documents, I’m all for it. It’s too bad he didn’t adopt this attitude earlier or with more generality. Let’s see this pathetic ‘evidence’ and tear it apart in his face.

  25. MikeS:

    you are definitely right, this will end up being like Watergate or Iran Contra, except bigger. A lot of people are going to end up going down. I can see it evolving on a daily basis. It started as a drip, then it was a trickle, it is now starting to enter the national conscienciousness ever so slowly but it is starting to enter, these things are usually exponential so I would give it another 6-10 months and then another year for trials? However Obama if he is going to do it has to keep congress for 2010, and I dont know if he is going to be able to do that. I think 2010 is going to see a good many independents in the libertarian model.

  26. Call me a cynic, but I’m still skeptical anything will be done. They might investigate, but they’ll give everyone immunity so that they will testify and “at least we will get the truth out in the open” or something to that effect. I’ve become resolved to the idea that our government can’t do anything right, especially when it comes to holding people accountable. The only accountability in Washington happens on voting day and that isn’t necessarily accountability but who won the media war.

  27. FFN,

    I agree–we need to see all of it and if Cheney wants to go for it, I think that’s just great. Here’s an article by Mr. Sands who is involved in the war crimes trials in Spain and who wrote the book: Torture Team.

    “Now, you seem keen that we should be able to see the reports you read showing all the benefits of interrogations to be made public. But why stop there? Let’s have those reports. Let’s also have the interrogation logs. Let’s have the videos and audio tapes of the actual interrogations, assuming they haven’t all been destroyed (in the meantime, you may want to take a quick peek at this, Christopher Hitchens writing in Vanity Fair, to see what waterboarding actually looks like in practice, and its effects on one of our more robust journalists. Why not call for the declassification of the waterboarding videos, so we can see for ourselves what information was gleaned in the moments and hours and days after the waterboarding was carried out?

    I hope you’ll excuse me if I am a tad sceptical. I recall, for example, that when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee last summer, Congressman Trent Franks reported that waterboarding was used on only three men and that, in each case, it had lasted no more than one minute. That gave a grand total of three minutes of waterboarding. What’s all the fuss about, Congressman Franks seemed to be saying. It seems that the source on whom he relied – Michael Hayden, who happened to be the former head of the CIA – wasn’t entirely accurate. This week’s news reports that two of those men were waterboarded on no less than 266 occasions.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/21-7

  28. There are “operations” going on domestically that are not consistent with the rule of law or the Constitution and yet they continue. We have an extra-legal/extra-judicial process in full-swing that, for whatever reason, is being ignored, denied, and/or condoned.

    What group(s) is(are) behind these operations isn’t known, but they are pretty good-sized and it’s hard to imagine that someone in a position of significant power doesn’t know something. When the scope and nature of these crimes (and they are crimes) are ultimately revealed, most Americans will be shocked and outraged.

    I have to believe that these crimes will one day exposed for what they are: acts of “domestic terrorism” directed at many good, law-abiding American citizens. The motive? I can only guess. Someone else will have to supply that bit of information.

    In short, individuals have been “targeted”, for lack of a better expression. The harassment techniques employed seem to be tailored to an individual’s specific fears, in conjunction with other tactics, which include frequent surveillance, a loss of 4th Amendment rights, surreptitious home entries, vandalism, thefts, and/or defamation. Those who complain, file police reports and/or express their outrage are labeled “crazy.” And that, in my opinion, is precisely why these operations work. They are perverse, Machiavellian and sadistic. They began, in force, in approximately 2001 and escalated in late 2006/early 2007. They continue to this day. Some theorize that political dissidents/activists, whistleblowers, and even the mentally ill may have been “targeted.”

    I wish this were some “nutty, conspiracy theory”, but it isn’t. I wish that those who are the victims of this outrageous behavior could simply be given “meds” or “a lot of therapy” to “make it all go away.” Tragically, though, these “operations” are a fact. I trust that they will be exposed. I’m left to wonder exactly “how” and “when.” Only then will we, hopefully, understand the “why” behind something that is utterly shameful.

  29. Cheney may have violated the law concerning classified documents by mentioning their existence or the merits of what is in them (conclusions, etc.).

    When a senator on the intelligence committee was asked about it the answer was the law does not allow us to deny or admit to such documents nor what might or might not be in them if they existed.

    That goes for all classified material.

    Cheney, in disclosing the contents and existence of classified documents is violating the law?

  30. Dredd,

    You’re right! Cheney classifies and declassifies the way some men change their aftershave! Oh, it’s feeling like an, I’ll destroy my enemy kind of day, so for now, we’ll say yes. Tomorrow it may be, Oh, I’m feeling a little blue. People may find out something I don’t want them to, so, as a pick me up, I’ll say No (and so on). That man is positively whimsical!!! Adorable!!! Cuddly even! And maybe what you said could be taken up. God help us because so far Congress and the President are MIA.

  31. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495/

    It would seem that someone at 1600 has been reading JT’s little salon and other bits of the Internet highly critical of not punishing those who ordered torture for Bush Co. No direct evidence, of course, but the timing of this story is remarkable. Let’s just wait and see if there’s any tooth and claw to this or if he’s just trying to placate. As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

  32. The AUMF was a vaguely worded piece of crap whose vagueness could come back to haunt Bush Co. I’ve always thought that. But since the Bush Weasels decided it was carte blanc to violate the Constitution and international law when it most certainly didn’t give express permission to do either of those things? I’d have to say none of it was covered by the AUMF so any claim it was will fail.

    I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind Congress that when dealing with the use of force, that being spinelessly deferential to the Necons and unspecific in their grant of power aided in Bush Co’s crime spree. So how about a little less lobbyist humping for campaign dollars and a lot more paying attention and doing your damn jobs from now on? We the People would appreciate it.

  33. ‘Dis ol country boy’s head’s a spinnin’ with all of the corruption. How is theys a’gonna be nary a soul makin’ laws or prosecutin’ ‘n vestigatin’ thar Congressmates ‘ifin theys all criminals includin’ them Justice boys ‘n a coward prezident?

  34. eniobob,

    I’ll have to say it was a spontaneous creation as I am not familiar with Reed’s use of the term. It does work well though.

  35. Zing, blind squirrel.

    All’s well!

    Let’s watch the ‘Savanna Consciousness’ play out now (fight or flight).

    BushCo will be singing:

    Don’t want to discuss it
    I think its time for a change
    You may get disgusted
    And think Im strange
    In that case Ill go underground
    Get some heavy rest
    Never have to worry
    About what is worst and what is best

    Hit it AG Holder

  36. You know CCD, when need that woman in your neck-of-the-woods to take her toy guitar she used on her hubby, go to Warshinton, and clean house.

    Seriously, for me personally, I have never seen such a mess and I am concerned for our Republic. It is not down-for-the-count but we are bruised, sitting blind on a 3-legged stool in the corner with 2 of those legs ready for collapse, and the referee is ringing the bell for the final round…

  37. Buddha,

    I was just at the UFO convention and there was no discussion of the fringe phenomena known as our laws. Chuck, what drugs did you score and where did you score them? Let us all in on the secret so we too may see your visions!!! That was a great link. LOL!

  38. This “but it works” argument is like arguing for another Katrina because it irrigated the crops so well. Ah, Mr. Cheney you missed the point.

  39. I have been reading the threads of these blogs for awhile and I am seeing a growing awareness of this torture issue.

    I can only say I hope you all know what you are requesting. I think you may be surprised at how prosecution of Bush/Chenny et. al. will play in Peoria. This is not going to unify the country and Obama is going to use it to consolidate his power. The left has been down this road before with watergate and iran contra both of which worked well for them. It gave us Reagan and made Ollie North a national hero.

    Something like this has the ability to really get the back of the right up and from what I can tell they have all the guns and rednecks.

    But good luck and good hunting, I hope this isnt a case of the dog chasing the fire engine and catching it.

  40. There’s a huge difference between breaking into the Watergate and trying to cover it up, being a gun runner for zealots and drug dealers and ordering torture as an official state sanctioned policy in contravention of the Constitution and international law.

    There are some lines you don’t cross without consequence and some pissed of rednecks vs. seeing those who ordered torture? It’s no contest. Give the rednecks more beer, meth and Larry the Cable Guy. They’ll get over it.

  41. If the investigation and prosecution of these alleged torturers is done in the right way and for the right reasons (where liberal politicians keep their mouth shut), shunning any attempts to turn the prosecutions into a media event or partisan politicking, I think this can be received well by the public at large. The people living in an echo chamber are always going to think what the political opponents of an investigation tell them. The goal of the administration, if these investigations proceed, is to remain cognizant at all times of the public’s perception of these proceedings. The only investigations I can remember that were controversial revolved around the September 11th attacks and the Clinton-Lewinsky ordeal. Clinton-Lewinsky was blatantly partisan and prosecutors and defense attorneys went out of their way to get into the media spotlight in any way possible. The September 11th commission seemed to be a lot more objective, although I admit that I did not follow it that close.

    The opponents of prosecution are going to have a media blitz trying to prove to the average person that this is partisan politics to the extreme. It is the responsibility of those who support these investigations to remain “above the fray” and refrain from using the results or revelations for political gain, no matter how tempting it may be.

  42. Now I take offense. I am a red neck, wear boots and don’t do meth. Good ole whiskey will rot your teeth the same. I don’t care for Larry the cable guy, but Larry Flint is a whole other chapter.

    But I too am pissed about the torture. Like no Other. But then again, inevitable discovery has worked for the crooked cops for so long that the defense bar is down.

    Though, Fat Green Guy, aka Buddha where in the Land of Oz even Dorthy couldn’t find her way home. So do you all really grow those Poppy? I do think its funny.

  43. BuddhaisLaughing:

    “Give the rednecks more beer, meth and Larry the Cable Guy. They’ll get over it.”

    An excellent suggestion, as Marie Antoinnette said “let them eat cake”. It is amazing how historical scenarios repeat themselves.

  44. Matthew N:

    the problem with this prosecution is that it will be distilled into political theatre. the left will not be able to contain itself and will over play their hand. most Americans will understand and it will all be for naught. what is left of the constitution will be further shreaded and we will be that much closer to a true dictatorship.

    Pelsoi et al. will be unable to control themselves, they are a feeble minded bunch and drunk with power.

  45. Yeah… I have no doubt in my mind that lawmakers won’t be able to resist. A guy can wish once in awhile can’t he? ;)

  46. lol

    Now now AY, some of my best friends and indeed family are of the non-meth redneck variety. I do have one cousin who turned his brain into Swiss cheese, but he wasn’t right before the meth. No offense was meant to immediate company, just to the redneck mindset that would endorse torture. You do realize I’m not just green, but often hyperbolic I would hope. That also goes for my in unceasing and well deserved Texas bashing (excluding TX politicians, they deserve every bit of venom). FFLEO, a traditional conservative senior (as in long time) contributor of good standing is also a fine fellow Texan and I have several friends in Austin. None of this means I’ll ever return to Texas. EVER. No salary high enough, no woman enthralling enough. Been there, done that, had enough, thanks.

    And I’m not green from poppies. Opiates are nasty but you have nailed the source of Kansas’ Flying Monkey infestation. I’ve never used them in a recreational sense, but after spending 4 weeks on a morphine drip in hospital I honestly cannot fathom opium/morphine addiction. Just vile stuff. I don’t see how Poe did it and functioned as *well* as he did. But for the record, when I talk to the Ghost of Marley, I don’t mean Jacob. That may explain my hue.

  47. Bystander,

    You fail to appreciate the seriousness of the crimes involved with Bush Co. Torture trumps all that other crap you mentioned. By leaps and bounds. And let’s be clear, the hardcore GOP kool-aid swilling part of the populace you refer to is about 15% last time I checked. They want to act out b/c their boys get sent to prison, let them try.

  48. Buddha Is Laughing:

    if you can guarantee no political theatre or left wing payback, I am on board. This is too serious an issue to make sport with.

  49. Agreed. This is too important for theater. This is the most important threat to the Constitution since . . . since . . . I can only come up with “ever”. But guarantee politicians won’t act like clowns? The best we can do is use the new media to make sure we ridicule them when the stray and hope for the best. Being theatrical clowns in just the nature of the beast for politicians. They are such pitiful ego driven creatures.

  50. One would hope by reason, logic and ethics. They are not incompatible. See Dennis Kucinich for an example of a reason driven politician. He’s a rare bird, I’ll admit, but it shows that it’s possible to elect people who aren’t “me me me” 24/7.

  51. Your comments on MSNBC were irresponsible as are some of your comments on this blog about the “torture” issue. What is sad, is that it can’t be blamed on ignorance, you are obviously an intelligent person. Therefore, it must be ascribed to an agenda. To title an article that Cheney attempts to explain away WAR CRIMES, is, as you already know a title which contains a legal conclusion. You have already concluded that War Crimes were committed. Obviously, and again you are too smart to do this without an agneda, you fashion yourself the judge and jury based upon a few CIA memos released. Boy you are quick. Perhaps if you keep saying “War crimes..war crimes..war crimes…” in a few more posts we can dispense with an investigation and just pick a few people to send to jail. As you said on TV “its obvious that war crimes were committed here.” Are you an actual law professor, or do you just play one on TV?

  52. Visualize the readers and fans of cheney’s book. Will they be leather or vinyl clad, cuckolded, sporting welts and red rubber balls in their mouths?

  53. Scott,

    Mr. Turley has no power to prosecute people. He is calling the behavior what it is-war crimes. Waterboarding has been admitted, proudly by Mr. Cheney. It is a rather large topic in the recently released memos. You can’t be unaware that waterboarding is considered a war crime, even in the United States.

    Mr. Turley is recommending that an impartial, apolitical, career prosecutor investigate the evidence and take it where it may go. I ask also with CCD, why not investigate?

  54. The investigation JT is calling for is aimed at suspected war criminals.

    He has also stated the targets of same maybe guilty, maybe not.

    An investigation may very well lead to future prosecutions for war crimes.

    Ideally, I’d like to see things move forward. Always cautious, I am equally interested in avoiding ‘cutting of our nose to spite our face’, as it were…

  55. Scott Rumph

    “Your comments on MSNBC were irresponsible as are some of your comments on this blog about the “torture” issue. What is sad, is that it can’t be blamed on ignorance, you are obviously an intelligent person.”
    ********************************************************

    Do you wear that chicken suit at the various rallies? Or have you not graduated to that level yet? I believe that your comments may be based on your total ignorance of matters which are vital to the integrity of the USA.

    It appears your knowledge of the law and the way it really works is, you make your decision based upon the fact or justify why this (your) case is different. I am sure since you can’t wear the chicken suit yet you are still in training. I suppose this is your agenda.

    Hitler was not around to explain or answer for his war crimes. Most of his Generals were. Cheney is, still around if you have not figured out. Some people profit from war. The first case of bankruptcy was when a country financed a conquest for territory and valuable. It did not result in as large of a profit as expected and the country went bankrupt. By the way it was privately financed. I wonder how much KBR aka Haliburton made off of this skirmish as you would like to classify it. The memos were released and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Perhaps sir, if I may take liberty. You are like most children and untrained adults. Quick to blame and then, rationalize when they are wrong.

    The memos state that water boarding did in fact happen and Cheney wanted it to occur. It has been the policy of most governments to jail rather than Han someone. Now that you bring that up, maybe a public lynching could be quicker, cheaper and help to restore integrity in the USA. Ah, but we believe in Due Process. Something Bush and Cheney abdicated in favor of torture.

    I conclude this with, Do you actually want us to believe that you could be so delusional with your inaneness? I have never met Mr. Turley nor have I listened to him on the radio or TV. But I am glad that we have this forum to express of various points of view. Albeit, patently different. Some call a Mule a Jackass. But sir, I beg to differ with you. A mule makes more sense which you have proved is illusive to you.

  56. CCD, thanks for the moveon pol.
    Moveon is controlled from the top down, firmly under the control of Rahm Emmanuel. It is why there hasn’t been much of an outcry against Obamas was escalation plans for afganistan, and single payer health care has been effectively quashed.

    My guess is that this is staged to drum up pressure for prosecution, and allow Obama not to be ruined politically for supporting it directly.

  57. Hello everyone:

    In breaking with tradition and being so publicly critical of Obama, Cheney is once again putting forward strong evidence that the only security he is concerned about is that of himself. In making the name of Valerie Plame public, he ignored any national security issues and now in calling for a complete release of all documents he is once again putting himself ahead of the nation. Of course, as has been mentioned, he considered all information off limits when he was in office. All of this information will eventually become public, I hope to live long enough to cuss Cheney once again for the damage he did to this country.

  58. Well I tried to read any substance to your reply, but I had to get around the name calling, and chicken suit references. Apparently, you missed the subtle point. Whether something is or is not a War Crime, is a determination of law. My point was that Mr. Turley has already concluded in the title of his article that war crimes were committed, as have you. It is actually ironic in the same post you reference “due process” and then dispense with it because you hate Dick Cheney. You mean due process for people you like? You are so concerned with the “integrity” of U.S. in matters such as due process then you go on an attempt to lynch certain people based upon little knowledge of facts. Your own post is so filled with internal inconsistencies that it is rather hard to reply to it. Due process for all terrorists but not for people that you hate because they are of different politics than you. That is certainly healthy for the “integrity” of the U.S. At least, in the future have some intellectual consistency and be able to recognize points that are probably beyond your comprehension.

  59. Oh, and by the way, non enemy combatants, outside the U.S.don’t have all the Consitutional protections that U.S. citizens in the United States have. When we captured those Nazi’s you speak of on the battlefield we didn’t appoint them an attorney and bring them each to lower Manhattan for a polite trial. They were put in POW camps and subjected to military tribunals.

    This point may escape you because it encompasses both history and law, but I thought I would throw it out there for you to chew on for the next month. Read a little bit, there is plenty of stuff out there.

  60. Ya mean the Nazi’s coducted Torture? Do Tell me more.I wonder if the Japaneese conducted any type of torture.

    I hear they have wonderful finger nail extensions or nail splints made out of bamboo. Oh shoot what do you call them again?

  61. I have been biting my lip here for awhile, but I can’t take it any longer. I agree CCD, that Mr. Rumph is one of the most interesting trolls that I have ever witnessed. Jill said it right when she said that Cheney admitted to the waterboarding in public, as did Bush. Waterboarding is defined in US law as torture and in international law as torture, so maybe Cheney is merely setting up a plea bargain. I am so gratified that Obama has finally come out with a positive statement that torture investigations and prosecutions are possible. We have to keep the up the heat to make sure Holder honors his oath.

  62. Scott,

    Mr. Turley has no power to prosecute people. He is calling the behavior what it is-war crimes. Waterboarding has been admitted, proudly by Mr. Cheney. It is a rather large topic in the recently released memos. You can’t be unaware that waterboarding is considered a war crime, even in the United States.

    ======================================================

    Thank you for your sane and polite response, albeit differing from mine. JT said their is “insurmountable evidence” that war crimes were committed. In other words anyone engaged in these matters is already guilty of a “war crime” and they cannot even defend themselves because the evidence is insurmountable. This is simply guilty before innocent. Secondly, I don’t know why the Congressional Committees, who were briefed that these tacts were being used numerous times, both Democrats and Republicans, including Nancy Pelosi, didn’t say anything if it is so widely a clear matter of law that these actions are “war crimes.” Are your ready for a Nancy Pelosi prosecution?

  63. Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?

  64. CCD

    I have no fear of investigation, but it seems to me the investigation, the prosecution, and the verdict has already be reached on here. The investigation I fear not, the predetermined outcome I do. Its laughable to hear people talk about Due Process for suspected terrorists which they don’t want to give to American Civil Servants because they are of a different political opinion of theirs. That is what is scary.

  65. Scott Rumph,

    Well I tried to read any substance to your reply, . . . Apparently, you missed the subtle point. . . .Whether something is . . . a War Crime, is a determination of law. My point was that Mr. Turley has already concluded in the title of his article that war crimes were committed

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

    You have made my point. But apparently sir, you have missed the point. If you make the state that we have authorized waterboarding then you have made an admission of fact and the law is what it is. No need to guess. Some people troll on here and try and be much more inflammatory and it gets pretty fun or not as the case may be.

    I do not dislike Cheney, I dislike what he has done and authorized to be done and then allowed others to take the fall. Like the Ambassadors wife, Valarie Plaime. Sir, you tell me if Scooter Libby enjoys his convictions for Just following Orders. You probably were not aware that Bush would not return Cheneys call to give Libby a full pardon on the 11th hour. I guess it was his last shot at a Dick.

    You bring up Due Process, Is not Dick Cheney entitled to the same that he authorized for others? If he were found outside the US if he is dumb enough to travel outside and is caught. Would we expect our system of fairness to trump? Of Course.

    The Nazi’s and the way the American handled the POWs was greatly different. Please check your history. The Chicken suit is the references to a person going to the others political rally and just heckling the others divergent views.

    Keep up the good work and I am sure you too will earn your feathers too.

  66. Are your ready for a Nancy Pelosi prosecution?

    YES

    I’m ready for an investigation of the actions of the previous administration and congress.

  67. May I say lastly, Scott. Political Affiliation has nothing to do with my position.

    You know what I think was the single issue that caused Geo the 1st his bid for reelection. When he stated that he did not know what the cost of a gallon of milk was. That said that he was out of touch with main street America.

    You have to have compassion for the people you represent. Ask Marie, oh you can’t. She became head above the rest.

  68. Chicken Boy,

    No actually, under law, Dick Cheney as a U.S. citizen is entitled to more Due Process rights than non enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. Its a matter of the U.S Constitution and the case law thereunder. In other words its a matter of law, and not my opinion. But I don’t want to interject any actual facts here, where opinion IS fact. Here is the way you can think of it so you can understand..When our soldiers in Iraq capture an insurgent they don’t give them a Miranda Warning card to read, you know the one that says “you have the right to remain silent…etc..” Get it?

    While you would like Mr. Cheney to have the same or less due process rights than insurgents, um, its simply not the way the law works. And after all, you are all about following the law aren’t you?

  69. Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?

    Still no answers?

  70. Scott,

    Learn the meaning of the words “prima facie” and read USC sec. 2441.

    Torture is a war crime. They’ve admitted they tortured. Waterboarding, by definition, treaty and expert testimony is torture. The rest is sorting out who gets to wear prison orange for ordering it in contravention of the Constitution, Federal law and international treaty.

    So exactly what is it about putting criminals on trial that offends you? Other than you seen really anxious to protect them by attacking due process as somehow corrupted before it starts?

    One can defend against a charge when there is insurmountable evidence. One just cannot do so successfully without malfeasance. Defense is not equivalent to guaranteed victory. Some people are just evil criminals. Guilty people go to prison every day and sometimes they have trials where they faced insurmountable evidence. Jeffery Dahmer comes to mind. “Insurmountable” is not the same as “falsified”. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. If you don’t want to go to prison for being a cannibalistic killer, don’t get caught with body parts in your fridge. If you don’t want to get caught for ordering torture, don’t order torture.

    If you’re so worried about due process, you certainly don’t seem to trust it to work. Nancy Pelosi prosecution? I’m afraid you’ve got your basic structure wrong. She’s a member of Congress. They can use an investigation to say whether they think a crime was committed, but it is the DOJ that prosecutes and the judiciary that hears said evidence. Obama even said himself today it’s up to the AG to file charges. Afraid for in camera review of evidence that members of the Bush administration acted in a criminal fashion? If they didn’t, which is not really possible if you’ve looked up “prima facie” (some crimes as illustrated above are blatant), then you should trust due process to free them. Otherwise?

    Your objections ring propagandistic and false.

    You’re an A List troll. Not the first I’ve ever seen, but the first we’ve had here. Either that or you’re not very bright and don’t trust the judiciary to do their job. If you are a troll (my bet), this makes me smile. Because they’d only send a sophist like you if they were really afraid.

  71. First, you don’t put “criminals” on trial, you put the “accused” on trial. Perhaps a slip by you, again illustrating my point of guilty until proven innocent. Additionally, what is torture, or was torture at the time these techniques were applied is not a black and white issue, although your simplistic view satiates your need for a quick verdict of your liking. See my son, the law is full of interpretation, even differing interpretations at different times of the same statute. Although, I don’t suppose we want to get into those grey areas, too complicated and may lead to actual legal reasoning rather than duh um dis is tawture, prima facie, case closed..duh….its all clear to me now.

  72. Chicken Boy,

    My reference to Nancy Pelosi was about her being prosecuted, not her conducting the prosection. You mean the justice department would do the investigation and prosecution, and the judiciary would hear the case? And I thought a congresswomen would conduct it…NOT. Members of Congress of both parties, including Pelosi, were advised and briefed that these tactics were being used.

  73. Scott,

    I can answer that Question by taking it apart as it is extremely compound.

    If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11. I do not believe that it would cause a national or international uproar. A single act to preserve National and International Security.

    Did you hear about the Attorney in Washington State that was arrested for being part of the Spain Train bombing. It was proved that the man was in court on the very day. Apparently they had lifted off his finger prints from a brief case that was used to make the bomb. It was eventually resolved but it was concluded that 1 in 10,000,000 share the same finger print structure. Get this An attorney in Washington. The killer info the Govt had was he converted to Muslim and he was white on top of it. Can you imagine the hardship that this mans family had to endure and the social embarrassment that they suffered as well. Go figure.

    The second part “and cause the detainee no physical injury” hmmm, let me shoot at you and miss you 6 times a day or have you watch while I shoot your family or tell you that you family is next door and they stated that you were a terrorist. I guess that ok for you. It does appear on first blush CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. But if you want it go for it. How you reconcile the psychological abuse.

    For the reasons stated above. NO

  74. Sport, you can use the term accused all you want. Accused becomes criminal after the evidence is heard. You, on the other hand, don’t want the evidence heard.

    I, personally, have heard enough evidence to determine guilt so I’ll use whatever goddamn term I want.

    But I am not a judge so what I call them shouldn’t matter to you should it? Unless you’re a propagandist trying to control the language.

    I have to no rules here other than I behave when JT asks me to so if you just want to act like a smartass after I’ve afforded you way more civility than I usually do trolls, you go right ahead and see how well that works out for you.

    And thanks for confirming your trollish nature.

  75. Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?

    Waiting for an answer

  76. Disallow.

    It’s torture by law and treaty.

    Does acting like your enemy in the name of “victory” justify violating the Constitution?

    Waiting for an answer.

  77. Buddah,

    Seems when backed into a corner you lash out with name calling and anger, the real Buddah wouldn’t like that. And the curse words…take deep breaths, in and out, read some law and some facts, and try and put them together in a cogent, sensible response. Just pointing out that someone who is so concerned with the rights of the “accused”, like terror “suspects” ought to be concerned with respecting all “accused” rights; you wouldn’t want to poison a potential jury pool by calling the accused a criminal before he has had his day in court. Again, being so concerned about rights and liberties, and due process, I thought you might want to apply it to all, being concerned about the integrity of the U.S. and all that.

  78. Answering a question with a question, another transparent tactic when you can’t or won’t answer the question.

  79. I’m not the one trying to paste due process as violated before it starts.

    And if you act like a dick, I’ll treat you like a dick. You got a problem with that, you shouldn’t have answered like a smartass punk with your Kingfisher Amos & Andy language.

  80. No. I answered your question and then gave you another, which you didn’t answer. That’s not the same as answering with a question, which implies I didn’t answer when I did.

    You’re A-List Troll, you know your basics in tactics, but you will fail.

  81. CCD,

    You didn’t answer the question because you didn’t read it. There was a conclusion in the question, the conclusion was the technique DID lead to disclosure of evidence that would prevent a terrorist act…etc.. It wasn’t a discussion of whether certain interrogation techniques are better than others.

  82. Come on, tell me why there should be no trial? Tell me why violating the Constitution is how you protect it? Let’s hear it in detail.

  83. Buddha,

    Innocent people go to Prison everyday. (The man is missing something after that Morp-drip.)

    Just ask Craig Watkins do DNAs on Convicted people I guess whom were Criminals are being freed. Well, these folks are getting released because of corrupt evidence or suppressed evidence or coached witnesses. The DNA just did not match up. Just bad juju.

    Well in a similar light, Due Process was not in the last administrations vocabulary. DP (and it does not stand for the Larry Flint meaning) had nothing to do with Bush or Cheney and for that they shall be asked to answer to. Unless they are needing to get greased up for the real DP.

  84. Or evade.

    Either way, your game is up and what you are is revealed to the readers.

    Say good night, troll. I look forward to laughing in my coffee tomorrow at how you try to worm out of it.

  85. Why have a trial? You already have concluded the Constitution was violated, the verdict is in. People so bending over backwards, twisted logic, in support of suspected terrorists, yet they convict anyone else and have the trial afterwards…this is starting to be either comical or sad. But the intellectual contradiction and hypocracy is transparent.

  86. So since due process applies, and assuming you all understand what the minimal standards of due process in the U.S. are, we are going to give Miranda warning cards to our soldiers to read to combatants they capture on the battlefield?

  87. The conclusion that a certain interrogation technique can lead to disclosure of secrets? Are you serious? That conclusion is fallacious? You mean in the history of interrogation by waterboarding no valuable intelligence was ever obtained? Hmmm let me think about this….intuitively, um..your wrong.

  88. Scott,

    awwww, now who’s name calling, troll bait? That’s just so cute.

    I have not done anything to endorse a terrorist. Those would be your words so keep them out of my mouth. You, on the other hand, have expressed that violating the law is justified if it brings victory. Well that’s just nonsense because you lose when you violate your principles in the name of expedience. You become what you fight.

    It is my learned opinion that they are criminals based on evidence presented to date. Nothing more, nothing less. Since it is not my trial to run, what does my bias impact the proceedings? NOT ONE WHIT. There is no twist in my logic, although plenty in yours. They committed a crime by definition. If they have exculpatory evidence, let them show the judge and the rest of the world.

  89. Buddha:

    Scott Rumph is the kind of advocate who masks stupidity with flowery polysyllabic words to create the guise of intelligence. He knows full well that civilized persons (an even some honest uncivilized sorts)since the time of the Inquisition have found waterboarding to be torture, but he is determined to torture us with some pedantic law school babble about the law being full of interpretation. It’s full of interpretation when the issue is undecided. That is not the case under his scenario. I suggest to my sagacious friends here that they avoid casting more pearls before this swine in the hopes he might eat one. Better to concentrate on those who are not blinded by their own self-inflicted myopia.

  90. There has been no proven violation of law…its just not as simple as you would hope..again you wish it was that simple. Definitions of torture, enemy combatants, due process (I hope they print those Miranda cards in Farsi, Urdu, and various other languages for fairness) and other matters are not..they broke the law its clear yada yada yada, that is your wish. Its more complicated, and should be more complicated than that.

  91. Wow such big words…yeah forget about things such as interpretation, due process…lets just cut to the chase…anyone we hate is guilty, suspected terrorists are the aggrieved…give me a break…its called law and the rule of law and does not lend itself to simplistic politically based verdicts.

  92. Pedantic, myopic…geez willikers I better get my Webster’s out..damn you are impressive. Give yourself a pat on the back and put your SAT study book down.

  93. Well let them have the trial in the Military Court of Justice. Oh yes, that would be fair. It would not be as bad as in federal court where they drop the the other 95% of the file on your desk the day trial starts and ask if you are ready to proceed.

    What ya gonna do bad boys bad boys when they come for you bad boys bad boys.

    I am amusing.

  94. Hey, Scott:

    Is a troll short for a trolley? Where everyone can take a ride. If so, you are on the wrong site. You might want to try, the alternative pages. That should get you going in the right direction.

    You have already stood up and said you licked Dick.

  95. Correction Correction

    Scott the last line should read

    LIKED DICK Correct it on your Copy. NOT LICKED DICK BUT LIKED DICK.

  96. A troll is apparently anyone that doesn’t agree with the same three people talking here. And I never said anything about licking or liking Dick. Boy you guys are so threatened by anyone that offers a differing opinion. Would rather just type to each other I guess in complete glazed eye agreement. I would think that would get rather dull.

  97. Well if you like W you should like dick. Thats all. No one has a problem with intelligent statement. Please see one of my earlier posts regarding a troll.

    It is kind of like arguing with a 2 year old or mentally challenged person. Regardless of the logic they still want what they want when they want what they want.

    You are free to post anywhere you want. Even if you are disagreed with. Just have respect for peoples opinion. That is all. Nothing more. No one is being graded and we only have one test and it is at the end. When asked, what did we do that made a difference in someones life. Did we make it better and di we stand by our convictions and were we capable of changing them when we were wrong? Not much more simpler than that.

  98. Scott Rumph:

    “Definitions of torture, enemy combatants, due process (I hope they print those Miranda cards in Farsi, Urdu, and various other languages for fairness) and other matters are not..they broke the law its clear yada yada yada, that is your wish. Its more complicated, and should be more complicated than that.”

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

    Then armed with the obfuscations you so eloquently enumerate, the scoundrels should have no problem facing prosecutor, judge and jury, confident in their innocence, virtue and patriotism. If obscurantism is a defense, then they (and you) should have no problem at all. Let the dodge ball begin!

  99. Scott –

    You don’t seem to really have a firm grasp of how the law works. The entire point of an investigation and a trial is that there is a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. That is how trials begin.

    The prosecution states that they believe this crime was committed, and this person was in some way involved, and through the course of the trial they will prove their case that said crime was committed by said defendant.

    The defense is allowed to state the opposite, that is that the crime may have occurred, but the defendant was not the perpetrator, or that in fact no crime occurred, and etc.

    When Professor Turley says that he strongly believes a crime has been committed, that is how investigations and trials usually begin. A belief, especially a strong one, that a crime has occurred is how these things begin.

    Your argument, however, may as well be applied to the ‘Craiglist Killer’s’ attorney, who made statements today that his client is innocent. Well, let’s be frank here and point out that no trial has yet taken place, and so how dare the defense attorney make such a statement?

    Well, Scott, it’s how these investigations and trials begin. One side says one thing, and the other side tries to knock it down. People have to make statements that lead to investigations and trials, because if nobody ever said anything then nothing would get done and people would walk free. Somebody has to make an accusation.

    And so of course someone has to believe that a crime occurred. And the fact that the prior administration’s top people have defended their actions in using water-boarding to extract information means that they have already admitted to committing the crimes the professor is pointing toward.

    For them to say that we may have engaged in actions which constitute torture (which is clearly defined as being illegal) but we got some info from them is equivalent to the accused ‘Craigslist Killer’s’ defense consisting of, “Well, I may have robbed and killed, but at least I got some money”.

    It’s admitting to a crime but trying to justify it by the results (which, in the case of torture are also shown to be flawed as torture has proven to not provide any valuable information.)

  100. Always a pleasure, and reading your posts are as well …

    I had to hold my tongue for fear that I might point out that Scott Rumph was just one omitted consonant away from being a ‘perfect ass’.

    Oops …

  101. The mutual admiration society ia alive and well. “Oh good point my dear friend”..”and to you my fellow intellectual.”

  102. Mojo,

    In your zeal to be cute and respond you have lectured me on how the ends don’t justify the means. That is a much shorter and less verbose way to state the point I think you were trying to make. However, you have obviously been reading the liberal talking points too much, e.g. Cheney tries the fallacious argument that if we got good intel it justifies techniques used. If you read my posts I never made that point. If you are going to lecture me, or attempt to, at least make the topic a response to a point that I have actually made rather than repeating talking points from MSNBC that are non responsive to any point I have made. You spent too much time and effort writing something that I was saying “what???” I don’t now what he is talking about.

  103. Scott,

    I guess we start out with the presumption of innocence. Well this is certainly more than Cheney afforded them. Ok, with that said. They are Cheney and company Innocent, even though they have publically admitted that they authorized the waterboarding. Have you ever heard of Respondent Superior. That means that the higher ups are guilty too.

    But so far the only ones with Guilt associated with any of the alledged crimes that have been admitted to by Cheney under the direction of Bush have been E-5 or less. You tell me why were they guilty? Sir, they were just following Orders.

    If they are in fact tried, for what he has admitted to in that a crime has been committed. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence even after they have admitted guilt.

    If they take the stand in the USA then what they have stated is a declaration against interest and can be used as a party admission and even to impeach his testimony. He would have to have some pretty slick lawyers and a really dumb jury or a judge and jury that has been bought to get over that hurdle.

    Repeat after me in order to over come the admitted crime: 1) Slick Lawyer; 2) really dumb jury or bought; and/or 3) really dumb judge that has been bought.

    Its that simple. Now you are wasting time. Good Luck and do us all a favor and read a book about the Nuremberg Trials hey a good book is Leon Uris- QBVII go out and get it now.

  104. Mojo:

    “The mutual admiration society ia alive and well. “Oh good point my dear friend”..”and to you my fellow intellectual.”

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

    My god, Mojo, Scott Rumpf damns us as cordial and wise! Whatever shall we do?

  105. Mojo,

    You exhibited remarkable restraint while administering a first class troll stomping. Good show.

    mespo,

    If the wisdom and cordiality is getting you down, might I suggest the Drastic Antisocial Method for Neocons Elucidating Despotism (D.A.M.N.E.D.).

    1) Read Orwell’s “1984” as a game plan instead of cautionary tale. May substitute “Mein Kampf”, “Animal Farm” or the more difficult to obtain “The Fashion Sense of Hermann Göring or How to be a Nazi and Look FABULOUS!”

    2) Sleep with the exhaust of a bus being pumped into the room at carefully timed intervals to avoid death, but not brain damage.

    3) Destroy something valuable once a day without thought to consequence.

    4) Hit yourself in the forehead with a hammer while listening to Toby Keith records for at least thirty minutes per day.

    After doing this comprehensive program, you’ll not only be rid of any charm and wit, but you are automatically entitled to membership in PNAC.

  106. Buddha, Mespo, Et. Al:

    I have been reading the debate you are having with Mr. Rumpf. Because Chenney has basically admitted he waterboarded wouldnt a trial be about determining if waterboarding rises to the level of torture and if it does, then a prosecution for torture. I keep going back to my early days on this blog and keep thinking that it will be hard to convince an average person that something our own military officers undergo as part of their training is torture, albeit they “voluntarily” subject themselves to the procedure. I havent read the CIA memos but have heard some second hand chatter about bugs and other stuff that sounded kind of corny (although you do have to regard the source).

    So I guess what I am asking what kind of bar would the justice department have to reach to prosecute W and DC? And because of Prof. Turley’s efforts this issue is going “mainstream”, once that happens how are you going to have a reliable jury pool and couldnt all of this be grounds for future appeals?

    I think, in the end, it is going to be a monumental undertaking to prosecute. One other thing, with groups like MoveOn.org in the mix the right is going to view this as left wing payback, how do you address those types of issues?

    The more I think about this the more I worry about long term consequences. The left and right are so polorized now I can see this leading to some really bad outcome.

    anyway just some thoughts.

  107. Bron,

    It will be an effort, but the “left/right” format is pure propaganda and distraction for the real issue. This isn’t about political preference. It’s about crime. That’s how you present it to the citizen – apolitical analysis of criminal action. It’s not only possible, it’s done in court rooms every day. As far as W and Dick goes, well, I’ve said all along that no one expects W to go to prison for the simple reason he’s visibly too stupid to be an instigator. Cheney on the other hand has enough evidence compounding his guilt coming out every day, sometimes from his own mouth, that meeting the standard of judgment for treason and war crimes should be as possible as it is necessary to restore the integrity of the Constitution.

    You might want to read this for a little perspective and a gleaning of how the argument should be presented in such a fashion that partisan hackery has nothing to do with it:

    http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2970

  108. “Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?”

    Scott,
    Simple answer from me is: No! However, queries such as yours deserve more than simple answers. Your question in and of itself is spurious. Why? Because before performing the torture the potential torturers would have no idea of what they were preventing. It’s a straw man you set up, that seems to make a lot of sense to people who do not wish to think too much. It is rhetorical legerdemain and a version of “When did you stop beating your wife?” A “no” leaves one open to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people be killed, than one tortured. A “yes” exonerates torturers and murderers like Dick Cheney (I’ll get to your point on calling him that in a trice)and makes the impermissible, permissible.

    There are two factors that also must be considered with this.
    One is that “waterboarding” has been recognized as torture since the Inquisition, though probably the technique is thousands of years older. The purpose of torture in the Inquisition was to get people to admit to the charges against them. Torture would be continued until an admission was made, or the person died. Curiously, some inquisitors would think that the persons death due to failure to “break” was an exoneration and that person would get a holy burial.
    The use of waterboarding has been proven via memos at this point so we know for a fact that torture took place.

    The second factor that must be noted is that life is not like the TV show “24,” which sets up clear cut scenarios that
    deal with torture. Also curiously, if you’re a fan of the show (and I am)you see that not every use of torture is valuable, or works, which shows that even Fox writers have doubts of its’ efficacy. However, although I think Kiefer Sutherland is an excellent actor and the show is about the tragedy of Jack Bauer’s life, it is not that well written and so shouldn’t be used by thinking people to set up scenarios that are fictional in nature, so that they can ask questions that are false on their face.

    Speaking of questions one for you:
    If Jesus is the Messiah and the Book of Revelations true, then would killing him upon his return, as well as the Anti-
    Christ, prevent Armageddon and save the lives of most of humanity? Equally as fallacious a proposition as your original query.

    Now as to the point of whether Mr. Turley has presumed Cheney’s guilt and thus is an unreliable commentator and somehow effects the validity of a potential trial, the answer is no and no. Mr. Turley will have no legal standing at Mr. Cheney’s coming trial and as a citizen is permitted to have opinions, which in this case are based solely on fact. Whether convicted, or not, the evidence shows that Mr. Cheney ordered and condoned torture. Whether this was unlawful is to be determined by a jury, though if I was a lawyer I would prefer a Judge to decide. As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system, because unlike others, we generally do not bar statements from outside parties about innocence, or guilt.

    Finally, my last point which is that you are obviously a skilled writer, but also too a dishonest man. I conclude this because anyone with your written skill is well aware of the fallacies of the straw men you set up and the inconstancy of the question you ask. This directs me to infer that you are presenting your case either because you are so completely partisan that you will defend your turf even at the price of disingenuous argument, or that you are a propagandist intent on sowing seeds of doubt through the use of straw men, possibly both. What leads me to lean towards the latter though, is your clever insertion of jabs at the “left” (which in your fantasies you think you are arguing with)throughout your comments in a manner that hides their nature, by the main point you are making. So you are intelligent I grant, but not nearly as smart as you think you are.

  109. Thanks for the polite response Mike. Actually my question about waterboarding wasn’t intended to be that deep or calculated, it was actually quite simple and intended to be so. And yes it does leave a person who answers “no” to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people die than have one suspect waterboarded. I respect those that say they would rather have 3,000 people die than waterboard one suspected terrorist, but I disagree with them. However, others on here have attempted to take some deep meaning to the question, parse it, etc., the intent of the question was clear, it posed a choice.

    I can take the jabs at me just fine, yours was a good read. However, there was one statement that was very curious:

    “As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system” Really, it is immaterial that he gets a fair trial? Hmmmm let me think on that one from a group of people that are so concerned with due process and fair trials. I am kinda confused.????

  110. Thanks for the polite response Mike. Actually my question about waterboarding wasn’t intended to be that deep or calculated, it was actually quite simple and intended to be so. And yes it does leave a person who answers “no” to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people die than have one suspect waterboarded. I respect those that say they would rather have 3,000 people die than waterboard one suspected terrorist, but I disagree with them. However, others on here have attempted to take some deep meaning to the question, parse it, etc., the intent of the question was clear, it posed a choice.

    I can take the jabs at me just fine, yours was a good read. However, there was one statement that was very curious:

    “As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system” Really, it is immaterial that he gets a fair trial? Hmmmm let me think on that one from a group of people that are so concerned with due process and fair trials. I am kinda confused.????

  111. Scott R.,

    After last night, you are indeed on your own. You cannot understand what you cannot understand. So no one can explain it to you in terms that you can understand so drop it.

    It is kinda of like College Calculus or Linguistics. You can either understand it or you better drop it. So in you case, drop it.

  112. Telling someone they can’t understand, in conclusory form, is a clear indication that they understand a bit better than you do. Adios.

  113. What I find deliciously ironic (I am looking for something delicious because the disgust I feel for what we have learned is almost mind-numbing) in all of this is that if prosecutions do ensue, conservatives will undoubtedly characterize the proceedings as show trials. Those convicted will be regarded by the right as political prisoners. Will Republicans be able to enlist their own William Kunstler? Will we see the trial of the Washington 7? Will we turn the decade of the sixties on its head? Stay tuned.

  114. Scott,
    It seems you read, perhaps appreciated its’ civility level, but didn’t get the meaning of my answer. My point was that your question in and of itself was not a valid one, but merely a meaningless rhetorical tactic. Perhaps though that is carrying civility a little too far, since you already know that. In truth your tactic was a dishonest one and as I pointed out totally hypothetical and unreal, but you conveniently ignored that part of what I stated because you know it was true. You admit to posing the question as a “trap,” but of course you are loath to admit that the question itself is pointless.

    In your last paragraph you quote the first part of my statement but leave out my explanation for why I stated it. That js also fundamentally dishonest. This, however, is the problem you pose. While on a superficial level you write well, there is little depth or debate in your writing. You are in fact more interested in being a propagandist for your viewpoint, than having a substantive discussion. I’m of course assuming that you may know the difference, but admit that I might be giving you too much credit.

    One of the sad offshoots of the “Crossfire” type of news show we’ve been exposed is that honest debate has been replaced by game like propaganda. Your comments thus far have typified that style. You are not interested in honestly defending your views, in fact you have taken pains to conceal most of them, you simply get a thrill from what you think of as “scoring points.” That’s too bad because you’ve obviously got the rudiments of intelligence, but seem to lack the intellectual honesty to go with it. Seeing your command of the language I approached you civilly to see if I could get a discussion started. From the form of your response I see that is not possible, so I’ll leave you to wend your merry way. It isn’t that I couldn’t beat you at your own game, but I found such exercises boring on the schoolyard arguing with Yankee fans when I was ten.

  115. Mike S,

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You continue to be the nicest guy on the Internet.

  116. Mike A.,

    I think there is a real battle taking place in our govt. right now between people who wish to keep the lawless status quo and people who want to take back our rightful Constitutional govt. I believe this is why we are seeing so much information coming out at this time. If I’m correct in this, I appreciate the willingness of those who are risking a great deal to get the information out and who are taking a stand for the rule of law.

  117. Jill, I agree. I have hopes that this may proceed the way Watergate did. A couple of courageous people come forward, providing courage to others, until the whole bloody mess explodes in a torrent of information. I think the Obama administration is wise enough to know that, regardless of what Congress or the White House are doing, there are many people furiously digging and the entire web of secrets and lies will be revealed in due course. Somewhere someone is working toward a Pulitzer even as we sit here trying to sort through the bits and pieces we’ve learned about.

  118. Buddha,
    The whole raison d’etre of these trolls is to make us angry. They care more for that then they do in scoring points for their side. If you think about it the more civil I am, the more sadistic I’m being, in denying them their fondest wish.

  119. My bad. But seriously Buddha how do I get emoticons to work? I feel that I’m not conveying enough emotion in my comments.

  120. I don’t know if the full compliment works. Let me try a few I never use here.
    :D >:) :P

    smile = colonD, devil = >colonD, Pfhht! = colonP

    There may be more.

  121. Mike A,

    I really do think this is blowing open right now. I’m sure the machinations are coming thick and fast. I’m grateful that we still have people in our govt. who have a conscience and have courage. I’m glad we have citizens to back them up. Most of our population isn’t willing to “bury the past”. I think that’s great. I’m regaining my faith in our country.

  122. Buddha,
    This computer stuff sure is hard on an old geezer.

    Jill,
    As I’ve been saying it’s gonna happen and it’s too early to give up on the Pres.

  123. Mike S, it’s ‘Obama Time”

    As I’ve been saying:

    Jill didn’t know what she’s talking about and doesn’t
    – even still!

    I said it before mespo and he said it before you and Rafflaw ;)

  124. Buddha,

    Now you are baiting the females. Ummmmm, I’m telling the teacher. Maybe they will put her in the cell next to Geo. the II. or W or 43 or bitch, whatever they may call him.

    Do you think that they might have a blanket party with the new Bitch on the block? Would that be torture? or would it be censored? I have an Enquiring mind and I want to know.

  125. Last bit, do you think that they will play all of the Elvis songs. Are you Lonesome tonight, You ain’t nothing but a hound dog for Cheney, Love me Tender, Jail House Rock, It will be a Blew Blew Christmas without you?

  126. I see Dick Cheney cuddled up in one of his “secure locations”, clinging to files containing his “secrets” just as a drooling infant grips his “blankie” for dear life. But now,out of office, in the light of day,his reputation threatened, he is demanding transparancy. Good. Let the sun shine in – everywhere. On all his secrets. Who was behind the torture? Whose idea was it? Who developed it? Who signed our on it? Who implemented it? It will be interestin to see just what he means by “transparent.”

  127. I see Dick Cheney cuddled up in one of his “secure locations”, clinging to files containing his “secrets” just as a drooling infant grips his “blankie” for dear life. But now,out of office, in the light of day,his reputation threatened, he is demanding transparancy. Good. Let the sun shine in – everywhere. On all his secrets. Who was behind the torture? Whose idea was it? Who developed it? Who signed our on it? Who implemented it? It will be interesting to see just what he means by “transparant.”

  128. AY,

    If Dick were to run into a sock full of soap or oranges in the showers late one night, I wouldn’t call it torture proper. More like a cross between karmic justice and natural selection.

  129. Don’t you realize that your pathetic attempts at humor just demonstrate your unmitigated hate. Therefore, if you just read your posts they demonstrate you can have no intellectual objectivity or be capable of an informed discussion. Men are often ruled by their passion rather than by reason, and this seems to apply to you. Again, this is assuming you could have a rational intellectual conversation over a topic you were not so filled with hatred for a particular individual…why don’t we talk about Saddam Hussein or the crazy Iranian leader, people you might not hate as much, then we can see if you can say something that is guided by actual logic and not by hate.

  130. Scott Rumph:

    And what fuels this hatred? I would be interested to hear your opinion. Some on this site definitely do hate W and DC for whatever reason, but a good number think that W and DC played fast and loose with the constitution and so should be held accountable.

    We on the right are certainly not above making jokes or engaging in political satire. I hope you remember the Clinton years and poor Jimmy the C is still the butt of right wing political jokes and derisive commentary. I can remember right wing buddies of mine spewing as much vile invective at Clinton as anyone on this site has projected at Bush and Chenny. And Henry Waxman, I have heard some pretty bad things about his physical appearence, not too intellectual I might add.

    State your piece, what are you a candy ass that cant take a little derision? Give it back to them. Your just like all the other republicans, Marcus of Queensbury rules or you wont fight, that is one of the reasons I am not a rebumpkinlin anymore, its the party of pussies and that starts with P and that ryhmes with Panzy.
    We could take some lessons from the people on this site about advocating for your beliefs and seeing them through to completion.

    Go back to the country club Lord Fauntleroy and sip a G&T.

  131. Well gee, Cheney Apologist Scott, you’re assuming a lot.

    1) That I care what you think after your previous displays of propagandistic ill- and false logics. You’re protecting a prima facie violator of the Constitution, various Federal laws and international law and you’re being a whiner about it. A racist whiner based on your little Amos & Andy tirade the other day. That’ll endear you to people and win them over to your side . . . if they are as humorless and stupid as you are. And don’t blather anymore about “interpretation” or “relativism” or “well it worked” arguments in support of torture. If you keep that up, you need to take Bob’s advice and go buy Lisa Simpson’s Anti-Tiger Rock, because you aren’t getting any play on that here. Wishful thinking and making the mistake that correlation is causation are amateur night.

    2) That I’m the one coming unhinged like a hateful madman here when all evidence points you just being a humorless small minded snot who rages at those he cannot best. I’ve been bashing trolls here a long time and the grand total of times I’ve gotten pissed off is once and it WAS personal. You? Eh, your not really coming close to that kind of record so far. You talk real pretty, but you don’t have any chops in the logic/fact department. And even if I do hate Cheney, and I do most certainly do, what do you think is the appropriate feeling toward a treasonous torturer? A warm fuzzy? Obviously so, which leads to the conclusion that you are also emotionally stunted as well as intellectually sub-par.

    3) That Cheney doesn’t deserve to get his ass beat as a matter of pure karma. For violating the Constitution and committing treason in the name of profit? I think it’s the least he deserves on top of a nice long prison term and having his assets seized and possibly a plethora of venereal disease which I am sure someone like yourself would be glad to provide. He should die discredited, beaten and penniless for what he’s done to this country. You don’t like that? Tough. Some people like Coke, some people like Pepsi. This in no way obviates that Saddam was a bad guy WHO DIDN’T ATTACK US ON 9/11 (I’m betting you are one of those who still thinks he did) or that Iran’s “I’mADinnerJacket” isn’t a hateful sadistic freak who’s going to get his country nuked if he doesn’t get his act together and quit threatening the equally psychotic warpigs running Israel at the moment. You and your straw men and false equivalences!

    4) Unlike what you seem to think, the law applies to everyone (including your Unca Dick) or it applies to no one. President and VP are not the equivalent of absolute monarchs and you’d understand that if you’d passed high school civics.

    If I’m hurting at all from your little tirade, it’s because I’m about to burst a kidney laughing at how personalized you think this is to YOU. Awwww. You Cheney’s illegitimate child or secret lover? Sure seems like you have a vested interest in protecting torturers. Got to be a reason.

    Thanks once again for showing how completely out of your league you are, although I’ll stipulate you’re a better sophist than most trolls. However, your repeated poor performance causes me to downgrade your rating from “A” to “B”. Whatever Dick is paying you in, cash or Dick, he’s not getting his monies worth.

    Enjoy that G&T, you elitist torture excusing hack. I’m going to sit back and laugh and laugh . . . directly at you.

  132. Your ability to argue starting with the conclusion that you would like and then talking about the conclusion already arrived at is simply not an intellectual way of making an argument. You apparently don’t know what a prima facie case is; you may hope there is a prima facie case against people you hate but why don’t you wait until some actual facts come out before you make the conclusion and then argue from the conclusion. You would be scored very low using this tactic in a debate.

    You and others have continually stated that I argued that the ends justify the means in regard to enhanced interrogation. I have never made that argument in these posts, but again, I won’t confuse you with facts as you dont’ seem to like that. I understand why you say that because that is the liberal retort to something Cheney said in an interview about the interrogations working to gain valuable information. The talking points are out, and you regurgitate them, even though I didn’t make that point..lol.

    Just copy and save that portion of your post for when someone does make that point it will save the strain on your brain from copying the points from whatever document or transcript you have them from.

    Lastly, the personal invective in youe poata ia the true sign of a real deep thinking “intellectual.” The definition of troll is apparently anyone that comes on “your” site and disagrees with you. Unfortunate.

    Also, you don’t have to be so verbose in your responses; pare them down a bit, only recite the salient facts (if you have any in your posts) and people are more likely to read the entire post. Just a friendly suggestion.

  133. Oh and lastly, the racist point, is a bit out of left field. Enlighten me on what I said that was racist?

  134. Scott,
    Your style is reminiscent of the late William F. Buckley, which you would no doubt take as a compliment. but I don’t mean it that way. Buckley, with his large vocabulary and patrician visage was seen as an intellectual, when at base his musings lacked the intellectual underpinnings one would expect of a Yale man. but then he was also a legacy like Bush Pere et Frere. You try to score with a persiflage of seeming high minded statements, but lack any content to back them up. Indeed, as I stated in my previous comment, which you were unable to address due to its’ valid content, you try to hide your beliefs and like a sniper from afar minimize your profile. To accuse buddha of lacking “intellectual objectivity” is indeed the pot calling the kettle black, since judging solely from your written content you lack any intellectual honesty.

  135. “may lead to actual legal reasoning rather than duh um dis is tawture, prima facie, case closed..duh….its all clear to me now.”

    There you go, jackboot. That’s the verbal equivalent of black face.

    And once again, for your criticism to be effective, the object of said criticism must care what you think. However, for the record, I’m not objective when it comes to the Constitution and violations thereof by fascist traitors. I think they should be subject to all kinds of ridicule and as much pain as fate and the legal system can fling their way. And then some.

  136. And what you think passes for reasoning? Well you’d have never used the word “interpretation” as a defense to torture if you had any critical skills. Some things are just by definition evil. Torture is one of them.

  137. That you could call some a racist based upon a few words of attempted baby talk, albeit probably not the best attempt, is really twisted.

    As far as your comment about me using the word “interpretation” as defense to “torture” is puzzling. Whether someone is criminally responsible for something requires that they violate the law, it also requires that they commit the crime as defined by the law, whether it be by statute or case law. We will just convict people based upon what “Buddha” thinks is a crime, forget about fitting all the elements of a prma facie case as expressed in case law, statute etc?, We will just say torture is “what Buddha thinks”..forget about interpreting the law, or seeing a legal definition of it. This isn’t me parsing words or being cute, this is actually how our system works under the Constitution. Whether someone is guilty of murder is defined in statute; simply because you kill someone does not mean you are guilty of murder. The law requires interpretation, and your suggestion that we should dispense with it because you hate Dick Cheney and doggone it “I just know he is a fsscist torturer”, or it is ridiculous to look at what the law says because “Buddha knows torture when he sees it” is itself ridiculous and contrary to our system and the Constitution you so deeply care about.

    “I’m not objective when it comes to ….fascist traitors”= Conclusion: that certain people are guilty of treason, then you will tallk about it after you make the conclusion.

    “prima facie violator of the Constitution, various Federal laws and international”=Conclusion, devoid of facts or any verdict holding or pointing to such a conclusion. Perhaps if you keep writing it over and over again it becomes true because you “believe” in it.

    However, I would rather deal with facts rather than ranting conclusions then inviting my minions to agree with me.

  138. You again mistake me for someone who’s going to do anything other than screw with you, troll. It’s what I do.

    Bob will be your huckleberry though. Please regale him with your irrefutable arguments that Cheney should be allowed to torture with impunity.

  139. Yes Mike, William F. Buckley was such a failure and an intellectual neophyte compared to you. Thank God you have the internet as a platform, I haven’t seen one of your books lately. You gentleman are so sanctimonious, and again, it is good you have this platform

  140. Once again “torture”, is a legal conclusion without fact. Don’t you realize when you are talking of a prosecution and using that word, you have to have a legal definition of what that means? Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney is a traitor, Cheney is a traitor; I said it, therefore it is fact. Unfortunately for you, and again thanks to laws and the Consitution, if you say many times it doesn’t become legal fact.

  141. One does not see definitions in the constitution. At least the copies that I have all unabridged. If someone has an extra one will they please share?

    I am pleased that the troll is feeding elsewhere. Maybe a Teas Party is in gear.

  142. Once again, waterboarding is torture.

    That’s a legal fact. http://truthalliance.net/Archive/tabid/67/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2594/DOJ-Prosecuted-Texas-Sheriff-in-1983-For-Waterboarding-Prisoners.aspx

    Cheney ordered waterboarding, ergo he’s a prima facie torturer based upon case law alone. I’ll let you do your own leg work on the various statutes and treaties he’s violated in addition to the 8th Amendment.

    I can embarrass you as well as any of “my minions”. You do them a great disservice to call them that as they are a varied and intelligent group well capable of coming to their own conclusions. You should learn the difference between minion and friend, but I suspect you have no baseline to define a friend. And this isn’t my blog, so technically we are all JT’s minions and since he serves the Constitution, it all flows to the source.

    I feel no need to prove my skills to you. I’ve done that here many times to and with people who demonstrated the character and skills to earn my respect. All you’ve earned is ridicule.

    I’d rather screw with you because you are such a propaganda troll. To me that’s just pure fun. I loathe propagandists, apologists and distortionists who try to provide cover for Bush Co. like Junior Bybee’s.

    Win? I’ve already won. You mistake the shape of my victory. One cannot win a battle in the field until one knows the shape of victory.

    But feel free to argue your semantic bullshit with Bob.

    He likes gnawing on gristle.

  143. A small, tiny point of law regarding the article you cite. The precedent it refers to is based on U.S. civilians in a U.S. jail. Now, this has to be explained, but I really do think you can get it. There are different rights afforded to U.S. citizens in a peace time jail than to someone held extra territorially as a result of, and during a war. Let me give you an illustration so you can better understand: When we capture someone exploding an IED and killing soldiers in Iraq, we don’t capture them and read them their Miranda rights. And to analogize an abusive sheriff trying to coerce a confession out of a citizen to a suspected terrorist who may have information about planning an attack on the U.S. and who is captured in a war zone is an “apples vs. oranges” argument, at least legally. For you to suggest, or the article to suggest, that these situations are on all fours with each other is legally and factually fallacious.

  144. The Eight Amendment it forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Well here is where it gets a bit tricky. What is cruel and unusual? This is determined by case law interpreting this clause in the Constitution. One would think if torture were cruel and unusual, where someone lives and suffers no permanent injury, then certainly being put to death would be. But here is where the law, rather than ranting comes in, the Supreme Court has held that death penalty statutes doe not violate the cruel and unsual portion of the Eight Amendment. I know you like to say “Eight Amendment, Eight Amendment, Eighth Amendment” but as you can see, once again it is not as simple as your hatred rather than reason would like.

    “I’ve already won.” What did I tell you about starting with an unsupportable conclusion? Its not effective. Oh and in response “My dad can beat up your dad.” See how ineffective it is?

  145. Scott:

    now you are getting into the swing. One thing though what does our acceptance of the Geneva Convention do to the way we treat battlefield prisnors? We certainly arent treating these guys the same way we treated German POW’s in WWII, my mother used to tell me stories of Germans from the local camps coming into town and of the local people making pies and cakes and taking them to the camps for the POW’s. What happened to necessitate having to hold POWs outside the US? I dont think these Germans were ever tortured (unless my mom made her “famous” peach cobler for them). Arent we governed by this treaty when we fight wars? I understand that taliban and al queda actors are not necessarily state actors, but the case can be made that they are. And while not signatories shouldnt we as a civilized country respect the rules of war up and above the Geneva convention? I dont think we even tortured Japanese prisoners of war and they did far worse than al queada.

    Any way I am not sure this is grist for a “formal” debate, the wrong side can win in those you know, and the subjectivity of the judges is certainly a factor.

  146. Scott’s ignorance is manifest. The Bill of Rights is not limited to “citizens.” It covers anyone within the borders or territories of the United States. In addition, the Eighth Amendment’s protection attaches post-conviction, and in no way applies to detainees. I like a spirited debate, but a battle with a twit should cause us all to withdraw in amusement.

  147. Scott:

    The FBI interrogates people, US citizens and non US citizens. They’re highly adept at it as well. In 2002 Bob Mueller declined administering enhanced interrogation practices. He ordered FBI personnel not to participate. He refused to break the law. CIA director George Tenet thought breaking the law would keep us safer. Would you agree? Breaking the law keeps us safer?

  148. Bron!!!!!!!!!

    That was the first rational, well written and well supported post, and polite at the same time, in response to my posts. Thank you. Actually, I am going to think about the points you made, honestly, and respond.

    Initially, you raise some very good points about the Geneva Convention, etc, and also at least acknowledge that this issue, and treatment of these people, is not analagous to someone in TX and a how they are treated after a traffic stop. A point others have been unwilling or unable to see.

    Thanks again.

  149. CCD:

    “Breaking the law keeps us safer?”

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

    Interesting comment: breaking the law to preserve it. Reminds me of that logic from the Sixties: “destroying the village to save it from the Viet Cong.” I like Scott–he makes me laugh!

  150. Ah mespo:
    Wishing I would have read your reply before posting!

    Quoting the Bullfrog ESQ himself,

    ‘Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.’
    One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.

  151. Actually Mespo the Eighth Amendment point was raised by your buddy Buddah and was in response to him. Why don’t you message him privately. Given the points I was making why would you think I would unilaterally raise the Eight Amendment. Better yet, apologize to him for embarassing him in public.

    Sorry buddy, but due process rights, which is part of this debate, again raised by others, do not apply in totality the same to U.S. citizens as to non enemy combatants. Your argument about the bill of rights is a non sequitor The Supreme Court only decided recently that detainees had ANY constitutional rights..you want me to give you the cite..?

  152. Bron98:

    “And while not signatories shouldnt we as a civilized country respect the rules of war up and above the Geneva convention? I dont think we even tortured Japanese prisoners of war and they did far worse than al queada.”

    ***********

    A few corrections:

    1. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
    2. American soldiers did torture both German and Japanese prisoners and were punished for it. There are no instances of torture for information, but retribution was indeed a motivator on the battlefield. Unlike today, our commanders acted to stop it.
    3. The Geneva Conventions apply to all armed conflicts whether the opponent is a signatory or not.

    I can give you the cites and more info, but suffice to say, it’s all available to you on the UN website –International Criminal Court page.

  153. Scott,
    I also want to remind you that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for their torture after WWII and we even prosecuted American soldiers for torture during Vietnam.
    Also, your comment earlier(I apologize for being late to the party tonight) complaining that we are jumping to a conclusion calling Cheney a torturer, is off base because Cheney admitted to ordering and authorizing waterboarding as did George W. Waterboarding is torture(as Buddha mentioned earlier) under US law and international law, therefore I consider Bush’s admission and Cheney’s admission as all the evidence required to prove that they both tortured.

  154. If only the lawyers at the top levels of government advising the president were as smart as you. I mean its such a black and white issue, so crystal clear, as to what torture is under the Geneva Convention. All you have to do is read it and “bam” war criminals abound. So silly.

  155. SCott:

    Detainees on American soil enjoy Bill of Rights protections-period. The principle predates the latest case. We call that precedent. The case you are referring to, Boumediene et als v. Bush, held that habeas corpus rights extended to detainees NOT UNDER AMERICAN JURISDICTION (technically Guantanamo is under Cuban sovereignty). The government conceded that the Great Writ would apply to detainees on American soil.

    “Fundamental questions regarding
    the Constitution’s geographic scope first arose when the Nation
    acquired Hawaii and the noncontiguous Territories ceded by
    Spain after the Spanish-American War, and Congress discontinued
    its prior practice of extending constitutional rights to territories by statute. In the so-called Insular Cases, the Court held that the Constitution had independent force in the territories that was not contingent upon acts of legislative grace. See, e.g., Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138.”

    Talk less-listen more.

  156. What did I say about screwing with you Scott? Plain English not enough? I’ve won simply because you’ve been exposed as a flack. That was my one and only goal after watching you spew for a bit. Your arguments, as mespo points out, are flaccid and ignorant at best. Many of us are or have been actual lawyers. You know, the kind that go to court and talk to real judges for a living. We’re not some punk 1L wannabe playing one on a blog. Hell, our usual 1L and 2L contributors, and there are some, do a far superior job to your efforts. Do you honestly think we haven’t run through the arguments against Bush and Cheney already? You do know that to run an argument against it is only wise to look at the argument for if only to spot your own weakness, right? Or do they not teach that basic logic and case prep skill at Regent’s? As I initially said “you ring propagandistic and false”, but perhaps you are a fool too. The bell has only tolled louder and louder. I’m perfectly content to let my “minions” rip you to shreds and ridicule you. Why? Victory is mine as my goal is accomplished. My job done. It’s their turn to have fun at your expense. Again, why? Friends share. And guess what’s for dinner? Just wait until your ignorance stirs Bob’s ire into action. I anxiously await that bloodbath. He is a fearsome creature for such a funny man with a frog fixation. Don’t let the cute little penguin icon fool you. Then again, you don’t listen to warnings, do you?

    I told you that you were in over your head in here. It’s only going to get worse for you. Conversely, it’s only going to get more entertaining for me. Ciao, skifu.

  157. Scott:

    “I mean its such a black and white issue, so crystal clear, as to what torture is under the Geneva Convention. All you have to do is read it and “bam” war criminals abound. So silly.”

    ***********

    Those who will not see are the most blind. Obscurantism will not save you when the actors themselves admit the deed but deny it meets the definition of torture. You will find no precedence in those memos that supports the methodology approved by the DOJ lawyers. This was lawyer shopping to find enough supplicant apparatchiks with a “JD” to sign off on the sadism that our redneck Administration deemed appropriate to deal with its “brown menace.”

  158. I guess my larger point is that people here who profess to be so concerned with individuals rights, dispense with them with people they hate politically. They appear to be only concerned with suspected terrorists rights, and to the point of almost crying while they are writing their posts. They speak of rule of law, treaties, etc. and then because they hate Cheney and Bush can’t engage in any meaningful discussion because they want, so badly deep down in their viscera, to “get” Bush & Cheney. They continually make intellectually inconsistent points depending on which party they are applying the law to. At least a few today have stated their case, based it upon some reasoning, which although I disagree with the conclusion, I can at least see the logic in it, e.g. rafflaw. Others have palpable hatred and yet try to fashion themselves as some deep intellectuals and can’t see that they have inconsistent logic, legal reasoning, or no logic.

  159. Buddha,

    The bell has only tolled louder and louder.
    **************************************

    Maybe the saying should be ” The bell has only trolled louder and louder. I wonder if you use a troll as the clapper what kind of sound would it make?

    Oh where is that Quasimodo when you kneed him or her or it or gender neutral or tranny.

    Was not there a book out that was call for whom the bells troll?

  160. Mespo,

    Again the posts are getting better, more like an actual discussion rather than a ranting diatribe filled with personal attacks.

    Do you think the Congress, which was wholly briefed on this, is culpable as well? I mean they are all lawyers, were they all fooled too by these clearly erroneous positions?

  161. Scott Rumph

    I guess my larger point . . . . They appear to be only concerned with . . .their posts. They speak of rule[s]. . . because they hate . . . .

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

    Now who hates, we are having a debate. See you neocons when somebody disagrees with you you take it personally and think that everybody hates them. No we do hate well maybe some do, But generally we debate. As was pointed out, we at the end would probably sit down and roll a joint or drink a beer together. Without hate.

  162. anon:

    “Was not there a book out that was call for whom the bells troll?”

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

    You humorously invoke one of my favorite John Donne passages that was later adapted into a short poem. The whole passage bears repeating:

    “PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.
    The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all.
    When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member.
    And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.
    As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.
    There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest.
    If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is.
    The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that this occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God.
    Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
    If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

    –John Donne
    Devotions upon
    Emergent Occasions, no. 17
    (Meditation)
    1624 (published)

  163. mespo,

    I do think he’s got Regent’s writ large upon him. He honestly reminds me of Monica Goodling. Since Bob Jones doesn’t have a law school, he could be BJU poli sci/pre-law. But yeah, he’s one of their lot for certain. All moral indignation and poor skills.

  164. Scott:

    “Do you think the Congress, which was wholly briefed on this, is culpable as well? I mean they are all lawyers, were they all fooled too by these clearly erroneous positions?”

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

    § 2340A. Torture

    (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
    (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
    (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

    After reviewing subsection (c), you tell me.

  165. Mespo:

    1)I meant the taliban and al queada were not signatories.

    2) I was talking about formal torture for information, I know that informal “payback” was occuring.

    3) I did know that there are rules of war.

    Thank you for trying to keep me straight, I am sure it is an exasperating project.

  166. Mespo and Buddha

    Thank you. But you did leave out Bringem Young and Ball State. I am sure more exist.

  167. mespo,

    Our ‘problem child’, Bartlebee/Wayne/CromagnonMan aka Bron 98,
    is once again promoting the idea that what he does is called ‘debate’ under various, newly introduced, handles.

    You want the ‘over’ or ‘under’ on the hysterical replies?

  168. Given your cases Mespo and your narrow interpretation of them, I hope we Mirandized the detainees so we can use the information we obtained from “torture” and it is not thrown out. Your analogizing or equating detainess as having the same rights as someone who is arrested in the U.S. If this was not your point then it was not well made. Stating the U.S. citizens on U.S. soil have Bill of Protection rights is a real shocker to me.. I didn’t think that is what we were talking about, I thought we were talking about enemy combatants at Gitmo, according to you “under Cuban sovereignty.” Whats your point?

  169. Given your cases Mespo and your narrow interpretation of them, I hope we Mirandized the detainees so we can use the information we obtained from “torture” and it is not thrown out. Your analogizing or equating detainess as having the same rights as someone who is arrested in the U.S. If this was not your point then it was not well made. Stating the U.S. citizens on U.S. soil have Bill of Protection rights is a real shocker to me.. I didn’t think that is what we were talking about, I thought we were talking about enemy combatants at Gitmo, according to you “under Cuban sovereignty.” Whats your point?

  170. Anon:

    “No we do hate well maybe some do, But generally we debate. As was pointed out, we at the end would probably sit down and roll a joint or drink a beer together. Without hate.”

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

    We are just simpatico tonight. Another favorite dialogue from “Casablanca”:

    Peter Lorrie (Ugarte): You despise me, don’t you, Rick?

    Bogart (Rick Blaine): If I cared anything about you, I probably would.

  171. Patty C:

    Give me the over at 6. BTW do you have any interesting carrot cake recipes? I can only find the old standard one from “Joy of Baking,” and I would like to spruce it up. Any ideas? I want some apples or walnuts or something in there–maybe rum!

  172. AY,

    For the record, I have a very, very small list of people who earn my actual hatred. They number less than ten. Two are personal vendettas of the old school kind. Men I wish personal and possibly grievous harm upon. The rest are people who screw things up for everyone. I’ll stipulate Cheney makes the list. He’s our very own Mussolini. Greedy as Hell but just not enough gumption to go full Hitler. Hell, Bush didn’t even make the cut. I almost feel sorry for that moron because I think he’ll go to his grave thinking he’s a good guy instead of a puppet tool for evil men and walking punchline. But you are right about neocons. They love to play the victim. I certainly don’t Scott, I do draw the line at having a drink and a smoke with him. It’d harsh my buzz. Propaganda with a dash of apologist always does.

  173. Scott:

    The debate is not about whether torture is effective or not. It’s illegal. It’s immoral. It’s the duty of the executive branch to enforce the laws regardless of how beneficial it may or may not be to break them.

  174. SCoot:

    My point is that the term “enemy combatants” is a canard. They are either federal detainees or they are not. They may be POW’s but that puts them squarely under the protections of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. This enemy combatant nonsense is Bush-speak for “I want around the law that won’t let me do as I please because I am the Unitary Executive.”

  175. You forgot the definitions:

    (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

    Not as simple as you would like it?

  176. It may be Bush Speak, but as you know, it was probably specifically carefully crafted to be in compliance with the law. As was GITMO selected because it is not clearly on American soil. The fact that they crafted these things to be in compliance with the law, although “crafty”, and something you may vehemently disagree with morally and policitally, does not per se make it illegal.

  177. WILL PEOPLE STOP ARGUING WITH ME ABOUT “THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS” ARGUMENT, I NEVER MADE THAT POINT OR ARGUED IT. AGAIN, SOME OF YOU HAVE “PRE-EMPTIVE TALKING POINTS” Thanks.

  178. Yes Scott it really is. There are plenty of cases holding water boarding is torture as are sleep deprivation, being subjected to extremes in temperature, humiliation, degradation, exposure to insects and on and on. This stuff by Cheney et crooks is nothing new. The Nazi’s themselves developed the term “enhanced interrogations” (“verschaerfte Vernehmung”)and also had doctors standing at the ready. That argument didn’t work for those sadists either. You remind me of the blind guy flailing about and touching the elephant’s tail and trying to prove to me it is a snake. You know about 1% and you opine as though you know 99%.

    Read Andrew Sullivan for the history:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-case-of-richard-wilhelm-hermann-bruns-et-al.html

  179. Patty C:

    “Our ‘problem child’, Bartlebee/Wayne/CromagnonMan aka Bron 98,
    is once again promoting the idea that what he does is called ‘debate’ under various, newly introduced, handles.

    You want the ‘over’ or ‘under’ on the hysterical replies?”

    how are Damewitts of the Magna Carta working out for you? Still a member? Go take some amphetamine sulfate for the dementia.

  180. SCott:

    “The fact that they crafted these things to be in compliance with the law, although “crafty”, and something you may vehemently disagree with morally and policitally, does not per se make it illegal.”

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

    The government of the United States is not in the “crafty” business. It’s in the fair and equal administration of law business.

    “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administation of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”

    –Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US at 485. (1928)

  181. mespo727272 1, April 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    Patty C:

    Give me the over at 6. BTW do you have any interesting carrot cake recipes? I can only find the old standard one from “Joy of Baking,” and I would like to spruce it up. Any ideas? I want some apples or walnuts or something in there–maybe rum!

    —–
    I do, I do… This one has marscapone icing! ;)

    I LOVE carrot cake and I make Morning Glory muffins often.

    Although I have never done it for this cake, I would suggest soaking the raisins in the rum (or gin!) overnight, if you want that ‘spike’ in flavor.

    http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/the-ultimate-carrot-cake-with-mascarpone-fromage-frais-and-cinnamon-icing,1663,RC.html

    The Ultimate Carrot Cake with Mascarpone, Fromage Frais and Cinnamon Icing

    I have been making carrot cake for years, and each time it seems to improve with a little tinkering here and there. Now I think it has reached its all-time peak – this one has been unanimously voted the best ever!

  182. mespo,

    You have a point there about ORU.

    Patty,

    In Bron’s defense, sometimes what he practices is called “confusion” and/or “lack of legal foundation”. I know nothing will ever convince you he’s not Wayne, but The Real Wayne does keep popping up on RCC dominated threads. You can tell by the homophobia and insistence he’s a Ph.D. Bron may be many things, but he’s not a homophobe or Wayne. I’ve been giving some thought to this and Bron may have been Bartlebee, that was before my time, as to CCM? I think he’s Wayne from our previous smack downs but not Bron. There’s two different styles going on and quite simply Bron doesn’t come off that batshit crazy. I’ll stipulate Bron came in initially like a troll. Hell, he’ll stipulate he came in like a troll. But I’d need more recent proof of his being the beast known as Wayne given Bron’s 1) consistent good behavior and contribution since his mea culpa, 2) he’s evidenced evolving acceptance to ideas CCM/Wayne foam at the mouth over and 3) JT’s verification of distinct e-mail. It’s not the IP identification standard I’d want in court, true, but it satisfies me as to his distinctness in light of the other items I mentioned. Have you considered CCM may be Jon Abbey? Just a thought. I know you are as unlikely to relent on this as you are on Jill, but seriously, look back at the styles and content. I think it’s a case of two trolls with one reformation.

  183. Feeling the need to continually tell people how much they don’t know within each post is really unecessary. It doesn’t help your position and may only lead some, with a thinking mind,to conclude that perhaps you feel the need to do that because you may feel a bit threatened.

  184. Patty C:

    OMG is it idiot proof? It’s looks fairly easy but I always mess up the topping somehow. Do I keep the ingredients cold or let them settle to room temperature?

  185. FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL
    FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL Scott Rumph FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL
    FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL
    DID YOU DID THE KOOL AIDE YET

    WILL PEOPLE STOP ARGUING WITH ME ABOUT “THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS” ARGUMENT, I NEVER MADE THAT POINT OR ARGUED IT. AGAIN, SOME OF YOU HAVE “PRE-EMPTIVE TALKING POINTS” Thanks.
    ************************************************************

    That is exactly what we are saying or at least I am saying about Cheney. And here is what Cheney said and did “WILL PEOPLE STOP ARGUING WITH ME ABOUT “THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS” ARGUMENT” I am the Veep and CIC and I make all of the Commander in Chief Decisions.

    Rice: I thought W was elected President.

    Cheney: Thats what you think.

    Bush: You mean I was not elected President

    Cheney: Thats right.

    See how it will play out SCoot?

    Ok could you find the fool, its kind of a basic Where’s Waldo. Hint it is the Name you use here.

  186. Pointing out errors is a way of telling people what they don’t know. How is it exactly that you plan to win a case in court Scott if you won’t tell people they are wrong? Hm? Perhaps reflexive defensiveness at being proven wrong is a sign of weakness of both intellect and fortitude. The only fear here is yours, buddy. And it smell just like maple syrup.

  187. Buddha:

    “And it smell just like maple syrup.”

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

    That’s the glaze I have been looking for !

  188. Buddha:

    thank you but can we call it confusion due to lack of legal foundation? Sounds much better.

    And honestly I am not any of those guys. I have consistently been me, these many years, well as far as I know. but then if there were 2 or 3 of me I might not be aware until I was arrested. Although I am pretty sure I am in here alone.

  189. Buddha and Patty C

    When I was working for the AG. I made Minced Meat Pies. I bought a half gallon of Rum. The next morning the bottle was empty. I did not feel so good and everyone loved the pies. I am sure I used most of the Rum for the intended Pies. But for the life of me. Living in Austin and doing the things that we did back in the late 70’s or early 80’s I am just not sure.

    It was like Give me some of that purple boogie . . .

  190. mespo,

    It does actually work with carrot cake. I had a Polish engineer friend in Dallas who liked it that way because he was allergic to cream cheese but carrot cake was his favorite. It also does wonder on Angel Food. hmmmmm Maple Glaze :D

  191. Buddha:

    That cinches it. I am off to Tom Leonard’s (our version of Stu Leonard’s) tomorrow to get the real stuff.

  192. Bron,

    Confusion due to lack of legal basis works for me, buddy. The bad news is that people who suffer true MPD (and there is debate about the legitimacy of the condition)? The personalities usually don’t know about each other. So you could be screwed. :D Just kidding!

  193. Bron,

    And I really meant the “buddy” too, not sarcastically like with our current troll fodder.

  194. Yeah, I guess crafting policies and procedures to be in compliance with laws is really bad. On the other hand it’s done every day. If it’s done by someone you like, its good policy and an attempt to comply with the law, if it’s done by someone you don’t like its a crime. I see the fundamental fairness and logic here…not.

    AY, that last post was really infantile. You are indeed the weakest anyway, so I won’t put too much energy into responding.

    Adios, Ciao, Auf Wedersehen and Khuda Hafiz.

  195. I did think it was funny, Kind of annoying did you not think? Now take the posting to the bathroom mirror and see if you are still annoying.

    I apologize if I offended anyone for the annoying rendition.

  196. Awwww, we hurt his little feelings by pointing out he was a hack who didn’t understand that of which he spoke. So tell me again Scott how you intend to win in court without pointing out the other side is wrong? I’d really like to hear that one.

    You’ve just been downgraded to a “C+”. You get the + because unlike most of your trollish wishful thinking policy wonk brethren, you can actually write in complete sentences that periodically manage to not sound like spoon fed Neocon talking points.

  197. AY,

    Yeah, my editor’s eye says you could have done the same thing with fewer iterations of “FOOL”. Still, it had it’s charms.

  198. mespo, not sure what you mean, but I make the icing with cool and room temperature ingredients. The glaze goes on warm cakes.

    Buddha, try gin soaked raisins or ‘sultanas’.
    You will like, I bet, and they are good for you, too,
    – for inflammation from ‘arthritis’ according to an old
    Folk remedy ;)

  199. Well I apologize for the dribble and the renal Fool. But he was getting annoying. He knows what he is doing and is enjoying changing the target once you get close to the answer to the question he asked.

    I love the Internet, if I don’t know, I can find it out and if I can’t find it out there. I can inquire within.

    So Buddha, I did a lot of Family and Criminal Law case, sometimes they were one in the same. What area for you?

  200. So did you get the Notice from the ABA about Advair and Floradil. A class action is brewing up. and Here in Texas Chantix is getting some coverage.

  201. How do I expect to win a case if I don’t point out to people they are wrong? First, I never said I was a lawyer, or in other words “assuming facts not in evidence.” Secondly, I lost the translation between “pointing out to people they are wrong” with “you obviously don’t know anything” “It is clear I know more than you” “You are a lightweight” “you are obviously a twit” etc. I lost the translation between those type comments and “pointing out to people they are wrong.” Are we speaking the same language? Those comments are hyperbole in the attempt to validate an attempted argument at the conclusion in the hopes that some ignorant reader will agree with them if you say it often enough.

  202. Buddha, Messpo et al.

    Is it glum in here again. Are the gnats letting us know it is spring and soon will be summer? I have seen a couple of June bugs smahed em to. They tried to get in the Hot Tub with me.

    Oh SCoot is about, Hi SCoot. I thought you got your milk and cookies and were going beddie bye?

  203. Nope.

    I quit the profession entirely. There’s a long post on here somewhere detailing why. Let’s just say I had a crisis of conscience because the guys I fell in with were the kind of attorney’s that give the profession a bad name. I haven’t even maintained my CLE’s. I did see something in the press about Chantix the other day. I’m a business man now. Less stressful and time consuming. I still get to scare the crap out of people in negotiations. Law is a flexible area of study I’ve found. Beyond the legal knowledge proper, it’s a great education in social engineering and raw logic/analytical methodologies.

  204. I’ve also noticed I comma splice and inappropriately use apostrophes when I’ve been drinking vodka, but that’s another story.

  205. See Scottie, that’s where you screwed up. You wanted to play lawyer with a bunch of lawyers. We don’t fight fair, especially when someone 1) acts like a propagandist and 2) visibly doesn’t know what they are talking about. You want to make the case for your boy Cheney? Go play with the children at WaPo or Huffington Post. Sharks patrol these waters.

  206. I took a break after my only son died of an Ambien over dose. I am ready to get back into it again. I like the Office environment and was quite the Rainmakker.

    The Judges another story. How many times can you say Fuck You to a Judge in round about ways before you get hit with contempt. 2 times 1 time down. I was good. I am good. I would have people follow me out of the courtroom or other cases I would pick up the other sides client after the case.

    But it took it toll when my son died and I just did not care. I was a poor mans Feiger. Oh yeah.

  207. Me too. Me too. You don’t know how sorry I am and how sorry of a parent I felt and all the other guilt. Now I am ready, got the teeth sharpened. Skills never left, I just did not care. I came back home and Isolated for about the last 17 months. Now Teeth Sharpened, check.

  208. I haven’t seen any sharks, and least of all in you. Because as your last post proves, most of your posts are “you visibly don’t know what you are talking about”….or “sharks patrol these waters” type of stuff, with a tad of the actual subject matter mixed in, usually in conclusory form. Again, if you keep saying such things maybe they will become true in your mind and no one will go back and read your posts and see how non responsive and devoid of any facts or cogent arguments. So sad about the C+, I so wanted to win your approval, you are great, you are my hero, you are a shark! Make a real point or argument once in a while. Start with the facts, apply some law and come to a conclusion. Again, don’t start with your conclusion, I have tried to help you in this regard several times.

  209. The skills never leave is you had quality instruction. I had an instructor for Logic & Legal Reasoning that could have made God question his rationale. A good law education is a bit like very directed brainwashing. A bad one? Well, we’ve had eight years of seeing what that looks like cough cough ‘Berto cough cough DOJ plants cough cough. I’m glad you got you zest for the life back. I sometimes miss it, but most days not at all. Like you said, how many ways can you tell a judge fuck you before getting the free green bologna sandwiches? Or in my case, how long can one resist beating the crap out of some mook taking advantage of his clients?

  210. And I’ll tell you once more: MY GOAL WAS NOT TO DEFEAT YOUR ARGUMENT BUT REVEAL YOUR TRUE NATURE AS A TROLL DEFENDING CRIMINALS WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

    I wouldn’t waste my time with your specious wonk bullshit arguments. You came in with a clear agenda. You got smacked down. Run along.

  211. Buddha, let me know what she thinks!

    I also have a pumpkin cake with cream cheese frosting recipe
    I still make, even though chocolate with white buttercream is my ‘fav’.
    —–

    For mespo, in the AM:

    The Original Morning Glory Muffins

    Earthbound Farm’s culinary consultant, Pam McKinstry, created these muffins in 1978 for her eponymous restaurant on Nantucket Island. The recipe was first published in Gourmet Magazine in 1981, and in 1991 it was chosen as one of the magazine’s 25 favorite recipes from the past 50 years. These muffins have a great shelf life and actually taste better a day after baking, when the flavors have melded. Store them at room temperature, covered, for up to 3 days, or freeze them for up to 2 months.

    Makes 16 muffins

    1 1/4 cups sugar

    2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour

    1 tablespoon ground cinnamon

    2 teaspoons baking soda

    1/2 teaspoon salt

    1/2 cup shredded, sweetened coconut

    3/4 cup raisins

    1 large apple, peeled and grated

    8 ounces (1 cup) crushed pineapple, drained

    2 cups grated carrots

    1/2 cup coarsely chopped pecans or walnuts

    3 large eggs

    1 cup vegetable oil

    1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

    Position a rack in the lower third of the oven and preheat to 350 degrees F.

    Sift or whisk together the sugar, flour, cinnamon, baking soda, and salt into a large bowl. Add the coconut, raisins, apple, pineapple, carrots, and nuts, and stir to combine.

    In a separate bowl, whisk the eggs with the oil and vanilla. Pour into the bowl with the dry ingredients and blend well.

    Spoon the batter into muffin tins lined with muffin cups, filling each to the brim. Bake for 35 minutes or until a toothpick inserted into the middle comes out clean. Cool muffins in the pan for 10 minutes, then turn out onto a rack to finish cooling.

  212. And on that note, I bid the regulars a good evening and notify you all I may not be posting at all next week as I am going on vacation as of Saturday. I’d say hold down the fort, but I know JT’s lounge is in good hands.

    AY,

    Fight the good fight.

    See you guys when I get back if I don’t get in tomorrow.

  213. bRon98,

    Buddha hath stated that he might be trolling the forum. But if we do not see him it because he will be on Vacation.

  214. Anon:

    I am sorry to hear about your son, I can only imagine. Hopefully time will dull the pain and you will be left with fond memories. My father died when I was 7 and from that experience I can tell you, you will never get over the loss and it leaves a hole in your heart but you will mend.

  215. AY,
    When I read your comment about your son my stomach churned and a tear formed in my eye. As a parent myself I can so empathize with what you must be feeling, but at the same time I know that I can’t even begin to approximate in my viscera what it is you’re going through.

    I don’t know what the facts of your son’s situation was, nor am I inquiring. I had an experience though with Ambien a few months ago that for whatever it matters I’d like to share with you. Having a severe heart condition and at time having trouble sleeping due to a tendency to ruminate, my Doctor recommended Ambien to me. It did help me sleep but I began to notice a feeling of being off in the days that followed. This feeling reached its’ height five days after beginning with the drug and found me in deep depression, crying to my wife that my life was over and I was going to die very soon.
    My wife was shocked because I am usually one of the most upbeat and optimistic people you could meet. She reflected this back to me and insisted that I discontinue the Ambien.
    Within a day I was back to myself.

    As a trained Psychotherapist of 64, with a good deal of Psychiatric experience and smarts, the effects of this drug snuck up on me and became overwhelming in a way that I wasn’t even aware of its’ happening. I can only imagine its effect on younger people. I offer this not as healing balm since you know better than I, that your healing will be a long process, that in truth will never end. I offer it only to help you realize that this is an overused and dangerous drug, whose prescription is not well thought out by Physicians influenced by drug company detail people. Drugs such as these should not be allowed to advertise.

    “Well I apologize for the dribble and the renal Fool. But he was getting annoying. He knows what he is doing and is enjoying changing the target once you get close to the answer to the question he asked.”

    No need to apologize AY, I’ve spent my morning reading all of the posts and replies to this guy and you have hit the mark. He is an intellectually dishonest, but capable writer, who takes pains to state his opinions obliquely and sneaks in attacks with feigned innocence. Ultimately a bore with a paucity of interesting content.

  216. Scott Rumph:

    “Once again “torture”, is a legal conclusion without fact.”

    Wrong; torture is a defined term existing outside legal vernacular.

    To wit:

    1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

    2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
    3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument (e.g. the way you present the definition of torture as a “legal conclusion”)

    “Don’t you realize when you are talking of a prosecution and using that word, you have to have a legal definition of what that means?”

    Wrong again; not only do the acts in question align with past torture prosecution precedent, but it’s also a question of fact for a jury.

    “Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney is a traitor, Cheney is a traitor; I said it, therefore it is fact.”

    To you it’s fact; to me it’s an allegation to be proved in a court of law.

    “Unfortunately for you, and again thanks to laws and the Consitution, if you say many times it doesn’t become legal fact.”

    Much like your “argument.”

  217. That ball is jacked out/a/here, bye bye, DOWNTOWN!

    Sports fans an off the bench, low inside, 2-0 change up, ejected.

    Cleared the park outside wall by 60 feet!

  218. Sorry Bob, I thought we were talking about legal prosecution for “torture”, and you invoke a Webster’s dictionary meaning? You thought I meant there was no entry for the word torture in Webster’s? See Bob, its called context, we were talking about the LEGAL prosecution of someone for torture. Thank you for advising me that its in the dictionary. Should they use Webster’s for jury instructions? Is that what you are advocating? That was actually a stupid comment for someone with Esq, after their name and likes to advertise it.

    And your comment about a “question of fact for the jury” is a little puzzling. You mean the jury decides whatever they want to decide is “murder” in a murder case? Hmmm they aren’t given jury instructions and the prima facie elements of the crime (e.g. a definition), e.g. If you found the defendant 1) took the life, killed, another ..etc. They don’t use “common vernacular” useage, and they are advised as to the elements of the law, which included the elements of the charge. Which by the way Bob is not read from Webster’s.

    Actually, your entire post, while attempting to be condescending was pretty much stupid, except for the parts in quoting me.

    By the way, did anyone of you know that the statute regarding torture is a specific intent statute? Aww heck I won’t want to confuse you with the law because Bush is guilty Bush is Guilty, Cheney is a traitor Cheney is a traitor, we know torture when we see it, we know torture whe we see it…..some of you are attorneys? Bob its against the law to practice without a license.

  219. And spare me the “to wit” crap. You have already put Esq after your name, I am not impressed, and I can read simple english. Nunc pro tunc, quid pro quo, sui generis, arguendo, give me a break.

  220. And by the way my “argument” is a simple one: Look at the actual law before you conclude someone is guilty of something; The modus operandi (wow big word) on here is “I hate Cheney and I know torture when I see it, so they are guilty, don’t confuse me with the law” or the other one “we are a nation of laws, the Constitution and due process, we must protect these insurgents rights…but Cheney is Guilty, Bush is Guilty, we don’t need to look at the law..throw them in jail” The intellectual dishonesty and contradiction is evident just in the posts themselves.

  221. I guess the anal one came back only to try and cause a angina attack only to realize that he’s nothing more than a vagina And he can’t understand that he can’t do the Vagina Monologues to well either.

  222. The above was indicative of what I have seen. Unless this is a test from G-d and I failed miserably.

    Forgive me father for I have sinned.

  223. justmy2 1, April 24, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    Next time, ask Chris Matthews if he would agree to Jessica Lynch being tortured?

    I have never written you before, but this is visceral. The next time anyone makes some type of moral equivocation about torture, I beg you to ask them if Jessica Lynch, captured in a time of war, with potential information regarding the security of Iraq, should have been tortured. Ask them why not?

    It is sickening to allow pundits to not be forced to admit they are only for torture when Americans are not involved. They need to be forced to come to grips with the ramifications of their equivocation.

    I beg you, as someone with a national outlet to force major pundit to either admit they are for torture, or admit they are hypocrites.

    Good luck in your future appearances.

  224. Scott,
    Oh good, you’re back again, this time refuting Bob with nothing, as is typical of your intellectually dishonest personality. It’s a pain in the ass to do, but with someone with your dishonest nature a necessity. You have been constantly refuted, but you refuse to quit, instead returning with misstatements, restatements, overlooking points you’ve previously made and mis-characterization of others remarks.
    So let us go through your now tedious obfuscation:

    You said: “Once again “torture”, is a legal conclusion without fact.”

    Bob replied: “Wrong; torture is a defined term existing outside legal vernacular.” and then provides the definition.

    You Reply: “Sorry Bob, I thought we were talking about legal prosecution for “torture”, and you invoke a Webster’s dictionary meaning? You thought I meant there was no entry for the word torture in Webster’s?”

    This allows you to skate away from your original statement, which Bob had amply refuted. Someone who genuinely wanted discussion would have answered Bob directly by showing why his refutation is incorrect, or admit their mistake. You instead choose the dishonest way and try to skirt around it by casting aspersions at Bob. That is not argumentation that is game playing.

    Scott then was quoted: “Don’t you realize when you are talking of a prosecution and using that word, you have to have a legal definition of what that means?”

    Bob refuted: “Wrong again; not only do the acts in question align with past torture prosecution precedent, but it’s also a question of fact for a jury.”

    Scott Replied: “And your comment about a “question of fact for the jury” is a little puzzling. You mean the jury decides whatever they want to decide is “murder” in a murder case? Hmmm they aren’t given jury instructions and the prima facie elements of the crime”

    Again your reply is non-responsive and stupidly derisive. Why
    you might ask? The answer is that everyone knows that the jury decides on questions of fact. That was what Bob said and that was what anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge knows. Your answer was again an obfuscation and an attempt to dance around your being nailed for another false statement. It might work well as a tactic with the Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s, who use it constantly, but not so much here. Now I’m assuming that you do know that a jury is the trier of the fact, which means that you are caught up once again in your dishonesty and this more than your peculiar viewpoint is the real issue I have with you.

    Debate to be interesting requires intellectual honesty, or what you get is two, or three sides talking at each other and not bothering to answer anyone’s points squarely. That is boring to me and to most others here. You typify this type of discourse, although you do it well, it nevertheless is quite obvious. Then someone has to go through the tedium of having to lay it out as I’ve just done above. In your case, you have used this technique to such an extent in this thread that one would need to write a book to demonstrate the falsity of your methods. Scott you’re just not worth the effort.

    By the way your putdown of me vis. Bill Buckley was quite infantile. Mr. Buckley was born on third base and believed he hit a triple. He was an egotistical popinjay, who no doubt assiduously studied Webster’s to find obscure words to make people think he was smart. While I in no way have matched his accomplishments, if you call them that, my own sense is that his IQ was no greater than my own and his life couldn’t match mine on many levels. That is of course my egotistical view, but you know what it suits me.

  225. What in the Wide World of Sports is going on here! I sent you boys out here to lay a little track, not dance around like a buncha torture supporting Nazi propagandist PNAC hacks!

    I figured I’d swing by after my busy day of setting things to run on automatic before I slip out of town only to find out some people don’t know when to stop.

    Well Scotty, I’d like to thank you for the vast amount of entertainment that the thrashing Bob is about to give will provide as I bask in the sun, sleep with women who wouldn’t talk to you and attempt to eat my body weight in seafood.

    As to your assertion “look at the law before you decide”, well dipstick, I’ve pointed you at the right laws before and you just kept on a blathering, apologist. Your ignorance is astounding, so let me help you out with that . . .

    Pay close attention. Torture is strictly prohibited by USC 18 § 2441 (d)(1)(a – i). And definitions? USC 18 § 2441 (d)(2).

    And since U.S. v. Parker et al wasn’t good enough case law for you either, moron, how about a history lesson from the mouth of one of the GOP’s elder statesmen, John McCain. He called waterboarding torture and was taken to task on it. This is what a little research turned up.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

    Pay particular attention to this gem . . .

    “McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.”

    What did the courts do to these waterboarding Japanese soldiers you may ask? I say “may” because you have a noted inability to ask the right questions.

    “A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.”

    And now for the relevant USC

    USC 18 § 2441. War crimes

    (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
    (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
    (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
    (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
    (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
    (3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
    (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
    (d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
    (1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
    (A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
    (B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
    (C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
    (D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
    (E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
    (F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
    (G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
    (H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
    (I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
    (2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
    (A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
    (B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
    (C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
    (D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
    (i) a substantial risk of death;
    (ii) extreme physical pain;
    (iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
    (iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
    (E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
    (i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
    (ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
    (3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
    (A) collateral damage; or
    (B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
    (4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
    (5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States obligations under that Article.

    Enjoy the severe beating you are about to receive from Bob. I tried to warn you. He was playing nice, but I suspect you’ll have just pissed him off. Joy! Now I’ll have something good to read on the beach.

  226. Strained once again Mike. You think if you say intellectual dishonesty enough it becomes fact? We were all talking about prosecution for torture. I was quoted as saying that torture has a legal definition if we are going to talk about prosecuting someone for it. Bob’s reply was to lecture me about how torture has common parlance meanings, and spent his time writing out the definition from Webster’s. My point was not the the word “torture” ONLY has a legal meaning (that is the only position for which his response would be somewhat responsive.) My point was, once again, ad nauseum, that in the context with which we were speaking you have to look to the legal definition of the term, and NOT keep uttering the common definition. So he amply refuted me? By responding that “Oh, not true it has other definitions as well..here is the Webster’s meaning…” That was totally out of context. I don’t know how it refutes me as it is completely non-responsive. But if you say it, it must be so. “Hear hear Bob, you completely refuted him.” “Yes yes my dear intellectual friend.”

  227. Bob was actually weak, quite non responsive, and really not impressive. And as to your lengthy statute you regurgitate did you ever read the part where the persons committing the act have to have the specific intent to cause severe bodily injury….etc. You can copy and paste, but can you read? Bush and Cheney Guilty, Bush and Cheney Guilty..

    And let me give you another point Buddha, usually when you call someone a criminal it is after a trial and conviction. After all you are so deeply deeply concerned with the integrity of the Consitution, or is it just for accused terrorists and people you like? The sure sign of a hypocrate. You may want to say “in my opinion they are criminals” or if I come on here after anyone is convicted and defend them state that “Scott is defending those criminals.” I would have no problem with that. However, when you do it before a trial, or even a formal indictment, it is 1) wholly inaccurate and actually exudes total ignorance on your part and/or 2) shows you for the person not at all concerned with the Consitution and its’ integrity and simply a hater, whose intellectual schizophrenia is transparent.

  228. And as to the jury being the trier of fact…really? My point was that they are not given for themselves to decide the elements of the crime, they are given instructions. Bob’s point was to say “not so” about needing a definition for “torture” after all the jury is the trier of fact. Completely ridiculous as it was used. Do you think the jury just makes up what they think torture is or murder is? Seriously Mike why don’t you think for yourself and not be so intent on defending every post of your fellow intelligentsia. His points were not ridiculous, they were just not on point, and no Bob, they did not refute me because you say so.

  229. I care so deeply about the Constitution, we must all work to preserve its integrity. We will do this by giving suspected terrorits due process rights, tears in my eyes, they have been denied this too long….What about Bush and Cheney? Throw them in jail, they are criminals, and throw away the key…what about whether the statute was actually violated..I said lock them in jail and throw away the key they are criminals…What about any investigation….I said they are criminals lock them in jail, oh and Cheney is guilty of treason too….

    Wow, my dear intellectuals..one way Consitutional integrity, due process..your posts are facially contradictory and reveal that your true intent has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.

  230. Oh my God Bob stop you are torturing me with your expertise. They said you beat me up, so I must be hurting. So they write it, so it is true. Conclusion based debating, very weak tactic.

    If his first post is indicative of things to come I think I will read at the same time I am typing my response. Again, not “wholly” ridiculous, just not on point. Oh wait sorry Mike said he “amply” refuted me before actually reading the post or my reply. Wake up Mike.

  231. I am hearing the chorus of the one tune mutual admiration society. Must get boring telling each other how right and smart you each are. Actually probably the only kudos you receive so I guess I understand.

  232. Troll, SCoot.

    Go away. You are the proverbial School Yard Bully. You don’t get your way. Whatsa matta little boy, you got Identity problems? No one wants to play with you?

    I think that you have alienated a lot of people with your exceptional charm.

  233. Scott Rumph

    “Sorry Bob, I thought we were talking about legal prosecution for “torture”, and you invoke a Webster’s dictionary meaning?”

    A word comes opportunely into play
    Most admirable weapons words are found,
    On words a system we securely ground,
    In words we can conveniently believe,
    Nor of a single jot can we a word bereave.
    — Some guy in a play called Faust

    “You thought I meant there was no entry for the word torture in Webster’s?”

    Do you often lob yourself softballs like that?

    “See Bob, its called context, we were talking about the LEGAL prosecution of someone for torture.”

    Silly me; and here I am thinking we’re talking about making brownies.

    “Thank you for advising me that its in the dictionary.”

    Still stuck on that legal vernacular distinction; eh?

    “Should they use Webster’s for jury instructions?”

    Why don’t you look up a few Pattern Jury Instructions and answer that for yourself.

    “Is that what you are advocating?”

    No, I was simply pointing out your loose use of terminology in your “argument.”

    “That was actually a stupid comment for someone with Esq, after their name and likes to advertise it.”

    Sorry, seeing how pedestrian plain old “Bob” can be, it was either Bobfrog or Bob, Esq.; does my choice disappoint you?

    “And your comment about a “question of fact for the jury” is a little puzzling. You mean the jury decides whatever they want to decide is “murder” in a murder case?”

    Thank you for betraying your ignorance of basic trial law. Let’s review: The judge determines matters of law and the jury determines matters of fact. Still with me? Great.

    “Hmmm they aren’t given jury instructions and the prima facie elements of the crime (e.g. a definition), e.g. If you found the defendant 1) took the life, killed, another ..etc. They don’t use “common vernacular” useage, and they are advised as to the elements of the law, which included the elements of the charge. Which by the way Bob is not read from Webster’s.”

    Did you read that before posting? Query, on your planet, just how would a jury deliberate over the crime of fraud?

    “Actually, your entire post, while attempting to be condescending was pretty much stupid, except for the parts in quoting me.”

    Aw, did-ums fall down?

    “By the way, did anyone of you know that the statute regarding torture is a specific intent statute? Aww heck I won’t want to confuse you with the law because Bush is guilty Bush is Guilty, Cheney is a traitor Cheney is a traitor, we know torture when we see it, we know torture whe we see it…”

    My you are quite a pouter.

    “..some of you are attorneys? Bob its against the law to practice without a license.”

    Practice what? You grammatical whiz.

  234. Hey Scott,

    I gotta eat dinner now.

    Feel free to either restate your argument or pout some more about how meaningless & insignificant my post was. Apparently you still need some more convincing.

    Your courtesies in connection in this matter are greatly appreciated.

  235. Your idiotic post while trying to be high browed only proved my point. Actually Bob since we are speaking of law, why would you ask if I am still stuck on the legal vernacular? Gee I don’t know Bob, because we are talking about law and prosecution. Therefore, I would like to use the legal meaning of the actual crimes that we are speaking of. Wow I know you beat me up Bob, ouch, Your point about vernacular was just as confusing the second time. Yes I am sticking with the legal vernacular because um..I strangely tend to do that when talking about legal matters. I understand if you don’t and would rather invoke Webster’s definition of torture when speaking of prosecuting someone. Finally, your reponse does indicate and I understand now that you thought we were talking about making brownies. That is all you had to say in the first place, now it makes some sense.

    Really, the judge determines the law and the jury determines the facts? Wow you are an intellectual Bob….got me…ouch. What is your point? The jury hears the facts and then says um…..did the defendant commit murder….? Um lets let the judge decide…actually Bob, are you still with me, they are sdvised of the elements of the crime in the jury instructions. They are not left in a vaccum and said ok you heard the facts, now did the defendant commit murder? And actually Bob, still with me? This second point of yours was again just as confusing as the first time you made it. Your ability to state the obvious about some common High School knowledge of the legal procedure was quite impressive.

    According to you the jury would hear facts of a fraud case and then the foreman would ask them if they have a verdict?…maybe you should read some pattern jury instruction

    Your points or retorts were about confusing. Spare me the retort that it is because of my small intellect that they were confusing. They simply didn’t make sense, and once again were more of a personal condescending reply than actual reasoning.

    And the comment about grammar, are you going to point out typos next as some for of intellectual superiority? How weak.

  236. Scott,

    Do you know what the definition of Torture is, since it seems to be elusive concept to you.

    Imagine, that you are the water. And we are on the Board strapped down, with me so far.

    Listening or should it be said reading your POS. That is Torture.

  237. I would attempt to get into a discussion of specific intent crimes, and how difficult they are to prove. However, most don’t seem interested in any kind of actual discussion of such technical issues. Bob, excuse the invective, it is only the second time I have spoken with you. Perhaps you only deserved a response with some “jabs.” However, I am sort of used to where those on here go when someone disagrees with them. So I did those in advance.

  238. Actually, while I usually disagree with people’s “opinions” on here, but that last post about torture is actually factually and legally wrong. Sorry, it just is. But if you want to believe that waterboarding is torture as a matter of U.S. law, you are simply wrong. Remember, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Don’t state something as fact when it is not so, or because you want it to be so.

  239. Scott,

    I did not hear that you got invited. Did you? I guess you are sticking your nose, yet again, where it does not belong.

    I would think that most people would consider you a bore. At least a Boar has a useful purpose. I am still trying to figure out why you are such a protagonist, do you have any ideal?

    Has anyone ever stated to you that you are a protagonist? If so, under what circumstances? Why do you not have respect for your fellow man? Is it because you feel the need to take control? Do you fee the need to talk until people agree with you? That is not friendship, have you been told that Scott?

    Do you easily get frustrated? Are you an aggressive Driver? Have you ever gotten ticketed for wreckless driving? Do you think that you are being that way here?

  240. Sticking my nose where it doesn’t belong? You mean on YOUR blog? Are you a nazi? You are so concerned with the Constitution aren’t you? I see some inconsistencies here. Do you prefer the self admiration alleged intellectual circle jerk here? We will crush any dissent! How American, you are so intellectually contradictory it is sad.

  241. Another intellectually and stimulating response. We will crush any dissent! Personally attack when we can’t respond with reason. You are all the polar opposites of what you claim to be.

  242. Another intellectually and stimulating response. We will crush any dissent! Personally attack when we can’t respond with reason. You are all the polar opposites of what you claim to be.

  243. Scott,

    Sticking my nose. . . . circle jerk here?
    ********************************************

    And Do You Feel You Are the Pivot?

  244. Scott Rumph 1, April 24, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Another intellectually and stimulating response. . . . Personally attack when You can’t respond with reason. You are the polar opposites of what you claim to be.

    I could not agree more

  245. I guess your keyboard got stuck. Its hard being the Pivot isn’t it Scott?

    You sent it twice and its not rice

  246. Did Scott go, where is Scott. I have a need to have my questions answered. Scott, can you do that. Please????

  247. I must be a real intellectual giant, I scared Scott away. You know in hind sight I think Scott was right, I am a mean, venal, low life scumbag, anti-intellectual blog Nazi.

    I have the brain of a marsupial.

    Scott come back I love you Scott dont leave me!

  248. Allow me to clarify:

    You claim that accusing someone of torture is equivalent to convicting someone of torture. Incorrect; since if prosecution of crime was as easy as you say, O.J. would have been convicted of a double homicide.

    You implicitly make the anemic claim that one cannot be accused of torture since, you argue, there’s no agreed definition of the term. This is a lame attempt at using Xeno’s Paradox type reasoning for the smoke and mirrors you’d need to convince your listeners that it’s essentially impossible to prosecute anyone of the crime.

    Torture, for federal prosecution purposes, is defined, as Buddha pointed out, in 18 USC 2340.

    The elements of the crime of torture are spelled out in 18 USC 2340A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340—A000-.html

    Instead of whining about people accusing Cheney of Torture have somehow already convicted him, you may want to focus on the the elements of the law that could help in the defense of your overlord.

    For example, what does “outside the United States” mean?

    (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
    (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
    (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

    And can you save your precious political favorites from getting their necks caught in a subsection c conspiracy?

    Finally, please note that expressing your feelings and opinions about an argument does not constitute a counter-argument. Your failure to realize this makes you look like you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag.

    Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

  249. No Sir, I do not go there. I think some Christian Group would complain.

    Scott do not come back and if you do learn some manners. That is not really too much to ask is it?

    Manners and Respect.

    But Scott has crossed the line way too much in his pursuit of intellectual dishonesty.

  250. Buddha,
    Good job reminding Troll Scott that torture is illegal even if he doesn’t think so. It is getting a little tiring to have to continue reading the nonsense that this troll continues to spew, but I guess that is his intent. His job as the torture troll is to distort the discussion as much as he can and to chase as many people away from the site that he can. He is good at his job, but it would be nice if the job description included knowledge of some facts. However, a pesty troll should not stop us from discussing the fact that Cheney is very busy these days trying to keep himself out of jail. Have we ever had a former VP or a former President or even a former cabinet member indicted for activities during their tenure on the job? Cheney could become the first former VP to shoot a friend in the face and then get indicted for war crimes. What a legacy.

  251. Hey Now don’t forget Dick Nixon. But for Ford he would have been charged. And Spiro Agnew, I am stretching here, but did he not resign over some disagreement with the Department of Treasury?

    I may have my Administrations mixed up. And did not Spiro has some issue with golf and a reporter?

    I am wondering if Cheney had shot a reporter would it have gone on as long as he did. Come to think about it, I believe that both counties are in south Texas.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/USA/Cheney_Gonzales_indicted_in_Texas_for_abuse_of_prisoners/articleshow/3732979.cms

  252. Alan Dershowitz, 2007, on waterboarding:

    “This brings us to waterboarding. Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of “waterboarding” cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents–some of which I disagree with–the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.

    The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?”

    I know Dershowitz doesn’t know how simply this issue is. They are guilty of War Crimes!!! Why doesn’t the intelligentsia here educate the poor uneducated ignorant Mr.Dershowtiz. There is clearly only one right opinion here, easily gotten to “I hate Dick Cheney, I hate George Bush=War Criminals.” What biased simpletons.

  253. Scott Rumpf:

    one of the problems with this is, it is almost the equivalent of the “Life Boat” morality qustion. Who do you throw out if the boat is sinking?

    I used to think it wasnt torture, my borther had undergone it as part of his training and he said it was definitely “panic” inducing and he knew it wasnt for real. There are many sides to this issue but dosent it come down to limiting the power of government? I am not going to equate GW and DC to NAZI’s but had enough people in postions of power protested at pretty much any point during Hitler’s rise to power the world would have been spared a good deal of pain and suffering.

    You cannot have government lawyers creating laws so an executive can do something he wants to do. It really isnt about torture, its about the concept of remaining a free people. Once a government lawyer can make a case for an executive to do something contrary to the rule of law America ceases to be free.

    It really isnt about whether waterboarding is torture its about whether torture is prohibited by our laws and the length the DOJ can go in supporting a president.

  254. Thanks again Bron for the well reasoned and thoughtful response. I don’t have time to respond now as I have to run. But appreciated. TTYL

  255. Torrentsoft.net – Быстрый торрент-трекер на котором Вы сможете скачать торрент СОФТ, игры, фильмы через торрент без регистрации и рейтинга…

    […]Torture Works: Cheney Unrolls New Campaign to Justify War Crimes « JONATHAN TURLEY[…]…

  256. Hey there just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few of the images aren’t loading correctly. I’m not
    sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same outcome.

Comments are closed.