Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
We haven’t heard his name for quite some time now, but former Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel attorney, John Yoo is in the news again. The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an appeal by convicted terrorist, Jose Padilla attempting to hold Yoo liable for the torture used on Padilla while in U.S. detention centers.
Believe it or not, the Justices stated that the law on what constituted torture was not clear when Padilla endured the Bush Enhanced Interrogation methods. “A three-judge panel of the court said laws governing combatants and the definition of torture were unclear during the years policies were crafted. Padilla alleged he was subjected to death threats, given psychotropic drugs, shackled and manacled for hours at a time, denied contact with family or a lawyer for 21 months and refused medical care for potentially life-threatening conditions. “That such treatment was torture was not clearly established in 2001-03,” Judge Raymond C. Fisher, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.” LA Times
Is it just me or does it confuse and upset anyone else that Prof. Yoo, as an OLC attorney can decide for the country what actions constitute torture and when sued for those torture techniques, the Court claims that because of those very same rules declared by Emperor Yoo, the methods employed against Padilla were not established as torture? It sounds like Prof. Yoo made up the rules of the game and is now hiding behind those very same rules.
“The 9th Circuit’s ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare until 2004 that citizens held as enemy combatants have constitutional rights. Even now, the 9th Circuit said, “it remains murky whether an enemy combatant detainee may be subjected to conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that would be unconstitutional if applied in the ordinary prison and criminal settings.” LA Times
Did the Court forget that Mr. Padilla was a United States citizen when he was detained and tortured by government officials? Wasn’t it patently unconstitutional to hold a citizen for 21 months without contact with an attorney or family members or a charge? Here is how the court answered that question.
“The court said that someone designated as an enemy combatant by the president – regardless of whether he is a US citizen or not – is not automatically entitled to full constitutional protections. “Padilla was not a convicted prisoner or criminal defendant; he was a suspected terrorist designated an enemy combatant and confined to military detention by order of the president,” the court said. “He was detained as such because, in the opinion of the president … Padilla presented a grave danger to national security and possessed valuable intelligence information.” “We express no opinion as to whether those allegations were true, or whether, even if true, they justified the extreme conditions of confinement to which Padilla says he was subjected,” Fisher wrote. “In light of Padilla’s status as a designated enemy combatant, however, we cannot agree with the plaintiffs that he was just another detainee” entitled to full constitutional protection.” Christian Science Monitor
I realize that these issues are not new. Allowing for one person, even any President, the ability to rescind normal constitutional guarantees for United States citizens seems not only dangerous, but unconstitutional. How can I, as a citizen, lose my constitutional protections just when I need them the most? I contend that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals missed an opportunity to right a wrong that could impact every citizen. Prof. Yoo created the rules that these justices used to exempt Yoo from liability for his scurrilous definitions of torture.
Shouldn’t that have rang a warning bell in the minds of these justices? What do you think? Did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals make an error? Let us know what you think!
The full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision can be found here.
And I thought that when Jethro Gibbs on NCIS shouts, “You’re a terrorist and you have no rights!” it was just dramatic license. Now it seems that he is on the cutting edge of constitutional law.
We call it the George Zimmerman doctrine.
Isn’t this called circular reasoning?
I think some of us who are not lawyers would argue that the law has been crystal clear since 1947.
And further that since 1947, judges who ignore their clear obligations, may subject themselves to lawful prosecution as well.
This is serious stuff. I don’t think that a claim ‘its really subtle and hard to figure out’ is going to wash.
The good news is there is not statute of limitations.
If you think my remarks are frivolous, then let Yoo, Cheney and a few others schedule a vacation in Europe. Then well see who understands the implications of the law and who is making it up as they go along.
Isn’t that view amazing… You have constitutional rights – unless somebody in government claims you don’t.
George W. Bush, Cheney, federal attorneys, congress, supreme court, all need a trip to the wood shed. They are disgraceful, fearful, lack of fortitude, integrity,and self respect. I would free all the people in Guantanamo and other jails and put Bush, Cheney, and others for in jail for war crimes. Torture is a crime. Indefinite incarceration is a crime. Period.
I mean, really? Really? I know that’s not the most articulate of responses, but others have and will say “really?” in a more sensible fashion. I just wish that our current President was any better. He should be, but he’s not, at least in regard to constitutional protections. Bush started it, and he should frankly be in jail for it, but Obama hasn’t exactly bent over backwards to stop this kind of junk.
I know courts don’t generally answer hypotheticals.
But I do wonder are there any limitations on drawing and quartering. Could we for example draw and quarter a retarded 13 year old.
Of course I referring to a hypothetical retarded 13 year old who had been properly declared an unlawful enemy combatant.
Of course this is relevant. We know for a fact that war lords sometimes intentionally recruit children. Our clear policy regarding drawing and quartering may very well have a deterrent effect on child warriors.
Bigfatmike,
are you talking about Texas?
“Isn’t that view amazing… You have constitutional rights – unless somebody in government claims you don’t.” -bigfatmike
That’s the way it works, given what I’m seeing. Some people just don’t realize it, yet.
Jose Padilla’s mother: “Tell me where in the Constitution it says that torturing Americans is acceptable,” said Lebron. “You don’t even treat an animal the way my son was treated. If they can do this to Jose, they can do it to anyone. I’m going to continue fighting until justice has been done for my son.”
Words to remember: “If they can do this to Jose, they can do it to anyone.” “…they can do it to anyone.”
FWIW:
ACLU Press Release follows, related to the Rumsfeld case (Rumsfeld, et al., Respondents)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/mother-jose-padilla-appeals-torture-lawsuit-us-supreme-court
Mother of Jose Padilla Appeals Torture Lawsuit to U.S. Supreme Court
April 23, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ACLU Suit Seeks to Hold U.S. Government Officials Accountable For Torture of American Citizen Jose Padilla
NEW YORK – The mother of a U.S. citizen accused of being an “enemy combatant” and the American Civil Liberties Union today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials for their roles in the torture of her son in a South Carolina military prison.
In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the case brought by Estela Lebron on behalf of her son, Jose Padilla.
“If the appeals court’s ruling is allowed to stand, government officials will have a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of an American citizen in an American prison,” said Ben Wizner, the ACLU attorney who argued the case before the Fourth Circuit. “It is precisely the role of the courts to ensure that allegations of grave misconduct by Executive Branch officials receive fair adjudication. That vital role does not evaporate simply because those officials insist that their actions are too sensitive for judicial review.”
Padilla was taken from a civilian jail in New York in 2002 by military agents, declared an “enemy combatant” and secretly transported to the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C. He was imprisoned without charge for nearly four years, subjected to extreme abuse and was unable to communicate with his lawyers or family for two years. The illegal treatment included forcing Padilla into stress positions for hours on end, punching him, depriving him of sleep and threatening him with further torture and death.
“Tell me where in the Constitution it says that torturing Americans is acceptable,” said Lebron. “You don’t even treat an animal the way my son was treated. If they can do this to Jose, they can do it to anyone. I’m going to continue fighting until justice has been done for my son.”
Attorneys on the case are Wizner, Alexander Abdo, Jameel Jaffer, Hina Shamsi and Steven R. Shapiro, of the ACLU; Jonathan Freiman, Hope Metcalf and Tahlia Townsend of the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School; and Michael O’Connell of the law firm Stirling & O’Connell.
Today’s appeal filing is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/padilla_supremect_appeal.pdf
“Did the Court forget that Mr. Padilla was a United States citizen when he was detained and tortured by government officials? Wasn’t it patently unconstitutional to hold a citizen for 21 months without contact with an attorney or family members or a charge? Here is how the court answered that question.”
Indeed. It also violates criminal statutes:
(The Penalty For Torture Could Be Death). So, another characteristic of America becomes “junk DNA.”
@rafflaw “are you talking about Texas?”
Absolutely not. Texas is far to civilized to draw and quarter.
The federal government, however has drawing and quartering as an option under certain circumstance. For example when a government official says you loose your constitutional rights.
I know this is subtle and difficult to understand for some of you.
But the remaining legal questions have to do with any conceivable limitations on drawing and quartering. I, of course, have mentioned limitations related to age and mental capability.
Other points of discussion might relate to the actual activity. Could we for example draw and quarter an individual for merely buying an air line ticket? Or would the perpetrator have to understand the likely outcome of providing the airline ticket? Could we draw and quarter someone who only thought they were sending their son-in-law on a holiday?
I think you will have to admit, as a legal subject, drawing and quartering unlawful combatants is complex with many areas where reasonable individuals may disagree.
Raff,
Isn’t this the same circuit Bebee sits in? Would that make a difference…… I think not…
I am reading a book about William O. Douglass….OMG…. Talk about one other great Sct justices….Such as the Griswold decision…. He had conflicts out the wazoo….. He rarely used stare decisis as the basis for his opinions…. He was divorced 3 times while on the bench….. Sat on boards to supplement hid income….. Amazing…..
Hid = his
Citizens in corporate oligarchy’s, run by the interactions of military and business interests don’t really have any rights. I’m just sayin……………..
DEAR RAFFLAW AND DREDD.
Having previously asked about our situation visavis intl conventions on torture, and receiving no answer here, I am pleased to see it come up again.
I, with easily performed searchs (novice myself) found both the convention, the US signing reservations and interpretations.
Here are first a citation from Dredd’s comment (thank you).
And my interpretation of how the executive branch, with monopoly on foreign treaties, gets around the convention and in fact practices torture.
How, simply by interpreting one word and renaming the purpose of the interrogaition procedure.
I hope you and others will read and understand my interpretation.
It is of interest to me and perhaps others if this holds water as an explanation of the NEWSPEAK practiced on us since the Bush/Cheny/Rumsfield years.
Quote of law(?) text:
“(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;”
End Quote
I’ve read that many time before after I asked here, but did not get an answer on how the government got around the international conventions by means of reservations etc;
and by what reservations were added afterwards, and can be added whenever it is convenient to our government (ie executive branch with the approval of the Senate NB).
The answer lies in re the “and” part in the law cited.
I’m not a lawyer, but:
the law, as I understand it, and as the Justice dept interprets it means that
THE PERSON MUST IN HIS MIND HAVE THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO ………ETC. for it to be qualified as torture.
The mere act itself is not qualificaion in itself, instead it must be done in an official capacity (the Iraq prison exception), and it must be the CONSCIOUS AND SPECIFIC INTENT to do these acts with the purpose to cause etc.
How now brown cow?
Well, the government simply says the PERSON IN QUESTION HAD ONLY INTENT TO ACCESS INFORMATION AS PART OF A ROUTINE INVESTIGATION AS AUTHORIZED. HE HAD NEITHER INTENT NOR WAS THE ORDER SO FORMULATED THAT THIS WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE METHODS USED..
SO, IF YOU ARE PURE IN MIND, AND WHO WILL NOT CLAIM THAT, THEN YOUR ACTIONS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
OR WHAT SAY RAFFLAW AND DREDD, OR ALL OTHERS IN EARSHOT???
As a kid I was taught that we are a nation of laws not of men. Any delusions I held of that being a true statement are gone. Its painful to watch my nation die, more painful that people are watching it happen and either saying nothing or cheering the death on under the guise of being fans of original intent.
Where do we get off lecturing China on human rights?
Futher,
“…under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe ”
Now a reasonable person would think that that means the LAW has the intenttion. Right? But there is of course no such law. But the loophole is in the interpretation that the PERSON must have the intent. And any detailed procedures “FOR INTERROGATION PURPOSES” lie well concealed behind executive privilege and national security fences.
It is like the divine rights of kings. Equally inaccessble except by revolution or to nobles under the Magna Charter. We ordinaries, don’t bother challenging it.
MikeS.
Nail on the head.
Here is a hypothetical question: Can one be accused of being a terrorist on the basis of having posed a hypothetical question???
If not, I might pose one. Does anyone dare answer?
It seems so quiet here on what is such a important question.
I wonder why. Is it so dangerous to question the powers of the President et al??? Does no one dare to take the risk of being the first executed at his pleasure in the comfort of their own land? Are the declared servants of the law afraid to use its powers???? Have the courts already deserted their constitutional guard posts???
Does 1984 begin in 2013?
Any answers???
Or does not anyone dare to answer the old fool who sticks up his head?
Or is he so mad that the white-suited men stand at the ready outside his door even now? Or are they clad in black, combat boots, helmets. standard SWAT geared, and my hood at ready along with soporific stool pill and orange clothes with zip fastenings.
Does anybody dare??? Sound like a song title to me. Or was it a funeral march? Or a diggery dirge as they would say in Australia.
“You have constitutional rights – unless somebody in government claims you don’t.” bigfatmike
Very well stated, and manifestly true. However, the caveat expressed in the second clause of the sentence effectively negates the concept of rights expressed in the first clause. Therefore, the sentence, in effect, boils down to saying: “You have no constitutional rights,” because if citizens have “rights” only at the whim of the government, then the term “rights” has become strictly meaningless.
The corporate courts have permitted — indeed actively abetted — the evisceration of the Constitution through cheap semantic slight of hand, i.e., primitive word magic. Language that used to reflect reality has now become what C. S. Peirce called “senseless vocables,” or what Alfred Korzybski called “noises.”
President of the United States to hired minion: “Write me a secret memo that pronounces “legal” anything I want to do.”
Hired minion : “Just between us, I pronounce “legal” anything you want to do”
Corporate judge: “Sounds legal to me. Whatever.”
NEWSPEAK from the TRUTH MINISTRY.
IS 1984 IN 2013?
Good ol’ “bitter ” Peirce,
Wikipedia says:
“As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by electrical switching circuits, the same idea as was used decades later to produce digital computers.[10]”
To which I add, you can do the same thing with faucets and pipes, but your feet get WET reading the output.
Said by the electrical engineer who did the test routine and equipment for the fluid propellant handling system at the White Sands LEM rocket test facility, ca 1964.
rafflaw,
“Did the Court forget that Mr. Padilla was a United States citizen when he was detained and tortured by government officials?’
Being a United States citizen doesn’t count for all that much any longer in the eyes of our government and leaders, I’d say.
The DHS would appreciate your cooperation in filling out this form:
(1) I am not now nor have I ever been:
(1) communist (unless duly elected Senate or House)
(2) subversive
(3) weather underground
(4) terrorist
(5) OWS
(6) liberal
(7) democrat.
(8) law student (except USG intern, SES attorney or
any schedule C)
(2) Activists, check here for immediate service.
(3) In order to facilitate agency authorized surreptitious entry to your
property, do you have or are you aware of any alarms or cameras at or in the vicinity of your property.
(4) If yes to (3) above enter key code here: _____________.
Please check all that apply.
Your DHS thanks you for your cooperation in this matter. Have a safe tomorrow.
:OFFICIAL NOTICE – By reading this document you authorize indefinite detention of close family members to ensure your cooperation.
Any questions: call 800-555-XXXX – DHS a Customer Service driven agency of your US Government.
You may be right Elaine!
The book Tyranny On Trial, by Whitney Harris, is a very complete documentary on the Nuremberg War Tribunals. Whitney lived in Saint Louis for a good portion of his later life and lived to be 97 years old, dying in 2007 or thereabouts. Another source which can be found on Google is The Judge’s Trial and a defendants last name: Altshoffer (sp?)
Back when America was the Exceptional country we founded the international jurisprudence on war crimes and crimes against humanity outside of war. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we will soon be getting it in our own rears. The judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case should look over their shoulders for their coverup and big fat lie about obvious crimes against humanity. Next they will be proclaiming that Tasers are not lethal weapons and that waterboarding is a sport indulged in by Southern Californians.
Big Fat Mike: We would welcome you to come speak to our dogpack. I agree with your comments- particularly the ones posted at 2:49 p.m.
Another subject related to this is the Reichstag Fire which precipitated the fall of democracy, the rise of the Nazi Party (elected by the way), the Third Reich, the War, the Holocaust. The act of arson of the house of parliament was later admitted by Goebbles of having been done by himself. The Reischstag Fire is analogous to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The response by President von Hindenberg was the Reichstag Fire Decree, which stripped civil rights. That is analogous to the Patriot Act. Google: The Reichstag Fire Decree.
We are well down the slippery slope. We are on our backs, complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity, sliding towards the abyss and then Hell.
Of course, on the slippery slope, the saying that four legs good, two legs baaaad, makes a dog have a little more hope than the humanoid.
BFM,
I am afraid your checklist is not too far off!
Frankly 1, May 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm
As a kid I was taught that we are a nation of laws not of men. Any delusions I held of that being a true statement are gone. Its painful to watch my nation die, more painful that people are watching it happen and either saying nothing or cheering the death on under the guise of being fans of original intent.
Where do we get off lecturing China on human rights?
I thought what Frankly said needs to be repeated, god help us..god help the United States of America
Metro,
It did need to be repeated.
Metro and Rafflaw,
So the new politician sign-off is:
God help you, and God help the US of A.
And some will also mumble quietly: And godddamn my opponent and bless my PACa and my oath doesn’t count.
ID707,
If you are talking about Joh Yoo and others who authorized, approved and participated in the Torture, then yes. Their Oath is to their corporate masters.
Rafflaw,
So right. Yoo and company take oaths. But it is as you say, to their masters, from whom they came and will return ASAP.
Do Americans think, falsely, that this is only a case of profiling? That the guy was of arab blood, and was probably guilty anyway; what the hell, he might know something important, etc.
I wonder when the first “American poster child” gets in their sqeeze.
Have you heard of any candidates?? Shall it be someone from OWS to send a wartning to them, or ????
MetroCowboy 1, May 7, 2012 at 12:31 am
Frankly 1, May 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“As a kid I was taught that we are a nation of laws not of men. Any delusions I held of that being a true statement are gone. Its painful to watch my nation die, more painful that people are watching it happen and either saying nothing or cheering the death on under the guise of being fans of original intent.
Where do we get off lecturing China on human rights?” (Frankly)
I thought what Frankly said needs to be repeated, god help us..god help the United States of America (MetroCowboy)
——————
Bears repeating… “…god help us..god help the United States of America.” (MetroCowboy)
Hyperbole? Nope but, even in the face of the things that we’re seeing, there are the deniers…
To Mike S’s excellent point:
Friday, May 4, 2012
“Private Empire”: Author Steve Coll on the State-Like Powers, Influence of Oil Giant ExxonMobil
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/4/private_empire_author_steve_coll_on
…anextension of my previous comment (“ExxonMobil… really sees itself as an independent sovereign in the world, and one that is almost the equivalent of a state,” Coll says.)
“We look at one of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world: ExxonMobil. Last week, the corporate giant reported it earned $9.5 billion in profits in the first three months of this year — or almost $104 million per day. We speak with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Steve Coll, who pulls back the curtain on ExxonMobil in his exhaustive new book, “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.”
“ExxonMobil, I came to think as I worked on this over four years, really sees itself as an independent sovereign in the world, and one that is almost the equivalent of a state,” Coll says. “They really are one of the most closed corporations headquartered in the United States.” -Steve Coll
(Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation and a staff writer at The New Yorker. His most recent book is called Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power. Previously, he was managing editor of the Washington Post and has also been a reporter, foreign correspondent and editor at the paper. He was awarded his second Pulitzer Prize for the book Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the C.I.A., Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. He is also author of The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century.”)
“Contact Attorney General Holder and ask him to prosecute Rodriguez: 202-353-1555.” –Jesselyn Radack, Government Accountability Project
http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/1963-prosecute-jose-rodriguez
Prosecute Jose Rodriguez
by Jesselyn Radack on April 30, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )
Prosecute Jose Rodriguez for violating the anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A).
He did it. Enjoyed doing it. And would do it again.
Rodriguez admitted on 60 Minutes that he organized, ordered, and destroyed evidence of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Yesterday’s 60 Minutes featured CIA rendition-supporter/torture proponent/videotape destroyer Jose Rodriguez, giving him a platform to pimp his new book, Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, which discusses CIA black sites and touts torture. (It should not be lost on anyone that Simon & Schuster gave Rodriguez a book contract, 60 Minutes gave Rodriguez a main-stream-media platform, and CBS owns both Simon & Schuster and 60 Minutes.)
Despite Rodriguez admitting his crimes on national television, the only person the Obama administration has criminally prosecuted in connection with the Bush-era torture program is John Kiriakou, who refused to participate in torture and blew the whistle on waterboarding.
How can we be a nation of laws when a former government official can proudly boast about his criminal behavior on national television without consequence?
Rodriguez’s callous descriptions of torture do not make his behavior any less criminal:
We made some al Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days.
Rodriguez adopts the Nixonian “logic:” “if the President approves it, it’s not illegal.” This shouldn’t save him from prosecution. “No one is above the law” – at least that is what Attorney General Holder told the Senate under oath during his confirmation hearings. Moreover, despite Rodriguez’s stubborn re-naming waterboarding an “enhanced interrogation technique,” there is no credible debate about whether waterboarding is torture. We can thank Attorney General Holder for that as well, as he unequivocally agreed under oath that “waterboarding is torture.”
Waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal, and it violates more than just the statute specifically prohibiting torture.
In addition to the torture statute:
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. That includes Common Article 3, which prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture; . . . [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Rodriguez admitted his crimes on national television. Surely that is enough for the Justice Department to begin a prosecution, especially considering that that the Justice Department has spent millions of dollars hunting down news sources who exposed government illegalities, investigating how Guantanamo detainees found out the names of their torturers, and prosecuting whistleblowers. Contact Attorney General Holder and ask him to prosecute Rodriguez: 202-353-1555.
Then, instead of reading Rodriguez’s torture-apologist swill, read Ali Soufan’s The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda. Soufan recently won the Ridenhour Book Prize for The Black Banners, which offers a reasoned, first-hand experience account of interrogation and articulates beautifully the advantages of rapport-building (NON-torture) techniques in obtaining actionable intelligence from even the most hardened suspects.
Too often the Obama administration answers calls for accountability with “look forward not backward.” I submit that if Rodriguez wants to “look backward” to sell books, then the Obama administration should look back to prosecute Rodriguez for his admitted crimes.
anon nurse,
great links. I will check out the site to hold Rodriguez responsible for his illegal actions.
http://www.nisc-llc.com/news/20081007.php
Rodriguez is now part of an IBM company — NISC — National Interest Security Company, along with Michael Hayden (former NSA director, former CIA director), as well as other CIA retirees, among others.
From his interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes:
STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn’t do that.
RODRIGUEZ: Well, we do.
It resonated with me that he said, “We do.” He didn’t say, “We did.” He said, “We do.”
Present tense.
ashame they didnt ‘find’ zelikow memo until 2006 http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46959508#46959508
Thanks leejcaroll. Madow is one of my favorites.
Idealist707,
Your various questions and points are well taken.
The bottom line is that Yoo et al. intentionally disregarded U.S. law and treaties with others (treaties have force of law).
They used pseudo-legal-reasoning to go beyond the Rubicon, to kick over the traces, and to practice what we have not practiced before.
Their deceitful machinations were not convincing, valid, or bona fide in any mature sense of the word.
So, a detailed comment on their mindlessness is not worth it.
The seeds they sowed are still doing damage and must be stopped.
The “old school” of law & fed regs was simply “the law is read in the broadest possible terms”. Todays jurists read it as “vague”. Yoo and his ilk say,”if it’s not specifically spelled out then its NOT included!”. The jurists agree. It can’t be torture if it’s not specified EXACTLY what torture includes. I bring this up from my standpoint of dealing w/ environmental regs [ objective,technically based regs w/ very specific language] rather than subjectivly based laws. The YOOs have hynotized the courts into viewing subjective laws as wholly objective, reading each law in as narrow a way possible so as to escape the idea and intent of that law. Just my 2 cents from a laymans POV.
Dredd and all persons who are conerned about our future, and that is all of you.
I asked about the consequences, but got no answer, of posing a hypothetical proposal of an illegal action. I would assume that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly would prevail; as the latter implies a freedom to discuss the possible messages and forms of protest and redress of the injuriies endured.
As we are in fact, but god knows if we are that in the eyes of the courts, on that issue there is much discussion—–but assuming we are “assembled” and discussion may commence, let me propose a hypothetical action for consideration as to its effectiveness, consequences, and whether it is subsumed by the FFs’ reasoning, writings and the Constitution/DoI etc.
This was a long preface, and only the bemused are still with me, or the obsessively curious.
Reward time: Open the mouth of your mind.
Is not, when facing the monument of iniquity, inequity, and sheer panopoplian variety of ills created by those riding our backs with glee, shouts, and with whips raised on high,………..AGAIN, IS NOT THE ONLY TRUE AND PROPER SOLUTION THE DEMOLISHING OF THE MONUMENT IN TERMS OF ITS CONTROlL, while retaining the vigor of the beneficial parts and taking over the reins of control????
Now this should be a subject which would require some discussion, I should think. That none other than Thomas Jefferson has recommended a new revolution every twenty years should give some weight to the consideration of the hypothetical solution He is also noted for uttering many quotable and notable words carrying the same sentiment.
Since the legal courses nominally at our disposal, have shown themselves corrupt and sold for money, the reinstatement of a democracy in more than name, is worth discussing in our assembly….!!!
What say yee?
PS Normal speech is permitted when answering. Mine is as it flows.
Guess I got smitted by the trailer of JTs battle film, with Henry V as model.
Anon,
Thank you for bringing up the Sixty Minutes piece, I was/am shocked that it took so long for that interview to be brought up on this site, I admit I didn’t bring it up, I wanted to, but since I get myself so worked up I decided I would wait and see what the big boys/girls on this site had to say about it…
I understand it’s uncomfortable to go off topic and finally there was a place to bring it out but with this groups record and opinions on the said subject the silence was very surprising.
MetroCowboy,
I posted it to Mike Spindell’s article “A Corporate Tale” a day or so after the interview. “A Corporate Tale” is about IBM, so that seemed like the most obvious spot to post it:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/03/a-corporate-tale/ (by Mike Spindell)
“This week Huffpost ran an article titled:“IBM’s Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal”, written by Edwin Black. The article was a followup to Mr. Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” published in 2001. As Mr. Black puts it justifying this particular article:
“Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM‘s pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
anon nurse,
scary stuff on IBM. Maybe Yoo should look for work there if the law professor gig doesn’t work out!
MetroCowboy,
I was surprised (well, not really) that Stahl didn’t explore (or at least mention) what Rodriguez has been doing since his “retirement”, besides writing a book, nor did she reveal much about his history with the CIA (again, not a surprise).
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jose_rodriguez__jr__1
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0502rodriguezcounterterrorism#a0502rodriguezcounterterrorism
MetroCowboy
…with this groups record and opinions on the said subject the silence was very surprising.”
Yeah, isn’t it. Does silence in the jungle mean the tiger is near. It would seem so. I mentioned it earlier. Some are brave, some are foolhardy, dome are wise, some are scared quite simply.
PS The blog system is screwing me up. Literally, My icon jumps into the middle of the space where I type.
Maybe it’s my delusions. I think I’ll turn off the PC and start again. If you’re having similary trouble, let me know.
Twice, the source in Jeff Stein’s article that follows, refers to Rodriguez as “a nice man” which makes me wonder…, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
“Here’s a take on Rodriguez from someone who watched him close-up from inside the CIA. It’s not flattering.
Rodriguez could not be reached for comment Sunday night.”
http://spytalkblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/jose-rodriguezs-defense-of-cia-torture.html (Jeff Stein of the old “SpyTalk” in the Washington Post
“And that’s who drove the CIA into a ditch.” -Jeff Stein
(JEFF STEIN’s SpyTalk began as a weekly column at CQ in 2005, and went daily in 2008, moving to The Washington Post in 2010. He is an investigative reporter of long standing, specializing in U.S. intelligence, defense and foreign policy. An Army Intelligence case officer in Vietnam… and the bio continues.)
“Some are brave, some are foolhardy, dome are wise, some are scared quite simply.” -idealist707
I can think of a few other possibilities.
Reposting:
http://www.nisc-llc.com/news/20081007.php
Jose Rodriguez, former Director of the CIA National Clandestine Service, joins National Interest Security Company (an IBM Company)
Fairfax, VA, (October 7, 2008) – National Interest Security Company, LLC, (“NISC”) announced today that Jose Rodriguez, former Director of the CIA National Clandestine Service, has joined NISC as a Senior Vice President. Mr. Rodriguez will immediately bolster NISC’s capabilities in helping the company’s intelligence community, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security clients.
Mr. Rodriguez led a range of increasingly critical operations over his 30 year CIA career. After serving in a variety of field commands, Mr. Rodriguez was selected to lead the CIA’s Counter-Narcotics Center, bringing together intelligence analysts and operations officers to improve performance in pursuit of complex narco-trafficking networks. In the aftermath of 9/11, Mr. Rodriguez led the CIA Counterterrorism Center’s worldwide collection program against international terrorist organizations and subsequently was selected as Director of the National Clandestine Service (“NCS”). Mr. Rodriguez is a seasoned executive, deeply knowledgeable of the intelligence community and its operations, and he is well known for his leadership in managing and evolving the NCS in a new era of missions and capabilities.
Mr. Rodriguez joins NISC’s Mission Services vertical as a Senior Vice President in Edge Consulting. He will shape and lead engagements that improve the current value of intelligence and create new intelligence capabilities that integrate technology into new concepts of operations. Edge Consulting is a technology and strategy consulting company within NISC Mission Services which provides analytically-based portfolio strategies and capability prototyping to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and several government agencies.
“We are thrilled to have Jose Rodriguez join our team and I am confident that his expertise will add great value as NISC continues to help our U.S. intelligence customers solve their most difficult challenges,” said Andrew Maner, CEO of NISC.
Chris Whitlock, President of NISC Mission Services added, “Jose is a well-known and highly respected professional within the intelligence community and national security community. The breadth and depth of Jose’s experience in the clandestine service is unsurpassed and we are honored to have him on our team.”
About National Interest Security Company, LLC:
Headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, NISC is a leading provider of innovative information technology, information management, and management technology consulting services and solutions in support of national interest and security initiatives for the intelligence community; the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy; and the Federal Health Information Technology community. NISC’s expertise includes systems engineering, biometrics, document and media exploitation, systems integration, software development, enterprise architecture, cyber security, information assurance, intelligence operations, analysis support, network and critical infrastructure protection. NISC has nearly 1,000 employees, with the majority holding high-level security clearances.
Can we call them “Extra constitutional citizens” please. They deserve the same consideration as persons of interest. They can be held forever without trial and they may never have been an enemy or a combatant.
anon nurse,
scary stuff on IBM. Maybe Yoo should look for work there if the law professor gig doesn’t work out!
rafflaw,
Maybe some will “enjoy” this IBM ad:
anon nurse,
Great commercial and a little scary.
rafflaw,
“Enjoy”, even in quotes, wasn’t the best choice of words… Creepy, Orwellian, unsettling…
I know this: I don’t want to leave this mess for our children. And as I’ve said too many times, we’re in a world of trouble that many aren’t even aware of, yet…
Anon nurse,
Neither to flatter you nor insult you, I had thought to describe you to Metro Cowboy as the “one with the biggest balls here at JTs.
But now you intrigue me. Normally would have replied
with a long string of my own other categories. But will depart from my childishness. If you have such that you really will enlighten me with—-then I’m all ears.
You are special, and that’s only the second person here that I’ve said that too. Meant positively. If you’re just laughing at me, that will have to be accepted also.
Anon Nurse and Rafflaw,
Playing catchup, may I point to a post where I claimed that soon that newborns in addition to footprints will as part of the routine “shots” will be “chipped” and RFID’d with nano particles. Wherever you are the “network” will know where you are, who you are, and likely who passed the “reading device” together with you.
My nurse friends asked: “Aren’t they already doing it.” “Well”, I said, “they maybe are. The last big pandemic gave them a chance to test the returns on getting unregistered older persons into the system.” They nicked.
Don’t know if I dare look at the IBM ad, I don’t like having my nightmares confirmed.
AN
looked at the IBM ad. Clever.
and the thought goes to the Holocaust connection and IBM. Wouldn’t chipping the jews have been sooooooo efficient.
I can just imagine Watson drooling at his profits.
Was he anti-semitic?
BTW, the shelf price tag took a picture of his irises for account check and product registration.
Booster shots (routine vaccination) will include later model chips with the expansion of the surveillance net with new devices, etc.
Anon, L Stahls performance on Sixty Minutes was at best half-hearted..most probably it was the best she could do under the circumstances of her corporate employment,.. I was given to thinking how Mike Wallace in another time would have handled the interview.
It’s a new world coming best get ready to duck an cover
ID,
Aren’t you forgetting your tin foil hat? Some evidence backing your claims would be nice.
Metro Cowboy,
I don’t watch 60 Minutes anymore. Too much of their corporatist ownership was showing and has been for some time now, but that’s just me. Please and I mean this sincerely, don’t feel you have to follow anyones lead here. This is an open forum and I’d hate to feel that people are afraid to express themselves. Our openness is where we differ from many other blogs. Visitors are welcome and the term “newbie” is one I’ve always hated.
“I don’t watch 60 Minutes anymore. Too much of their corporatist ownership was showing and has been for some time now, but that’s just me.”
It’s not just you, Mike. I don’t think I’ve watched 60 Minutes in 12 or 15 years and for that very reason.
This blog cut me off the email list. Four legs good, two legs baaaad. I guess I will four leg it to another blog. Tanks.
Mike S believe me Ive got a big mouth and am not afraid to say what I think, but I have to say there are people on this blog who I think are brilliant and I love following what you guys say…. your so much more eloquent than me Thank you professor for having this group and I really do love being a small part of it.
TalkinDog, did you accidentally unclick the box at the bottom when making a comment? The one that puts you on the email list?
Idealist: “I can just imagine Watson drooling at his profits.
Was he anti-semitic?”
=======================
I worked at IBM for several years (mid-60s to mid-80s). I was “the first woman who” in many categories but left when the testosterone became so thick I had trouble breathing… and the plans for databases and telecommunication products had me thinking of “1984″. White men were the employees of choice. With the women’s movement more women were hired but their upward movement was close to non-existent. Jews and Blacks were certainly in the minority, as were other non-whites. It probably wasn’t a deliberate policy, but rather those who made hiring and promotion decisions tended to see those most like themselves as the most qualified and the most likely to expand their own power base. Double standards were common. The overriding corporate interests were expanding market share and making a profit.
The Rhinoceros virus is now attacking judges.
TD,
WordPress has been making changes to the email notification system. It may not even be something you’ve done or not done. I’ve had a few issues over the last 4 or 5 days myself. I suggest just going through and resetting your notification options manually. Hopefully they will be done dropping new code before too long.
Gene,
I have had some problems with WordPress today as well, but nothing deadly.
raff,
Same here, just annoying. It has been signing me up for emails I don’t request and not following threads I ask it to. I’m sure it’s like the text box issue and password issue. They seem to do a bit of de-bugging as they incrementally drop code. I don’t think they do a lot of offline testing before they drop code live.
Raffig,
Implying I am a nut with a tinfoil hat was a well done piece of charactter assassination. Did you study that or were you born with it?
However that may be, there is alraady ample proof in countless journals and articles and are to some degree already imtegrated into the existng infrastructure. Follow the tech section of any reputable newspaper, NYTimes for ex.
Chipping is already practiced on animals. RFIDs are so
small that they are injectable. The matter of arranging injections I have tested on medical personnel, etc. So what do you expect from me? A CIA document and/or an IBM one?
Read AN’s comments and get the deeper meaning of the IBM ad. That should do it. Or don’t you believe in domestic drones, or body screening, or…….?
I suggest that you take off your tin hat instead, as it seems to protect yur from external info. It’s not dangeraous per se.
Since you get down to a personal level, I will to. I think your father and his comrades should have been accorded a monumant at Arlington. And Obama should have been there. A national shame must be righted. Have you seen the statue with the Vietnam Wall on the Mall? Someting like that.
BettyKath,
Glad IBM Sweden turned me down. They said that my taking a year off to enjoy myself as a tourist and a year at Stockholm University to change from engineering to data systems made me unacceptable. Who knows what they actually thougt. No more sour grapes.
Congratulations holding out so long. You were a witness.
Who knows, IBM might have been the first to establish “CORPTHINK” and “CORPSPEAK” outside of WS.
Warning JOKE: What sort in industrial injury did you not get compensation for there?
“I was given to thinking how Mike Wallace in another time would have handled the interview.” -MetroCowboy
MetroCowboy,
A friend of mine said the same thing — I’m sure that it would have been a much better interview with Wallace. Having said this, it was still possible to catch the essence of Rodriquez in Stahl’s interview. Anyone with an interest in the torture issue would have found it interesting and enlightening, IMO. I hadn’t watched 60 Minutes for the better part of a decade, but have seen a few shows over the past few months, some of them fairly interesting — a case in point, the F-22 Raptor story this past Sunday night.
It’s a new world coming best get ready to duck an cover. -MetroCowboy
Yep.
And as I’m guessing you already know, even “the best and the brightest” have their blind spots.
id707,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Without some proof of your chipping/nano-particle assertion? You might as well be claiming Big Foot is following people around with Elvis in a UFO. At best it is rank conspiratorial speculation and at worst it is some kind of (likely baseless) fear mongering. Raff asked for proof. So am I. Why? Because it’s a crazy idea. Consider how many people it would take to implement a conspiracy on that level let alone attempt to cover it up and then reconsider the likelihood of your statement being even remotely true. Throw in the fact that a certain percentage of the populace will get X-Rays or CT scans or MRI’s that would show chips and a certain percentage of the population are prone to have an adverse reaction of some sort (hystemic reaction or otherwise) from nanite exposure and the discovery certain of such a plot tends toward 100%.
It was entirely speculation intended to arouse discussion of the ever-extending surveillance by Big Brother. Get it now? I could be glad for now for your pointing at hystemic reactions, etc.
I am not so sure thay won’t be able to do it anyway. The telephone companies cooperated with the Feds for years before it became known. And whose to say that it must be scannable and can be detected. The Med chain doesn’t even have to know, it could be a hidden system. But again speculation, so relax.
We could also start speculating on tracking folks by their cell phones. Or don’t you believe that either. Or we could discuss the profiling by the Google History function, which you can nominally stop.
Or also take up the many apps and services which download updates which take over executive functions in your laptop, such a one is Active-X in Microsoft lingo.
Some ask and some don’t. But those are the ones that are using the Microsoft entry point and interface code. Those who do their own are not detected, if you have checked the box for having read the contract terms of service. And who bothers reading those? Do you?
And thus we leave our doors unlocked, we trust our politicians, and away we go. etc.
And what do you think caused the vertical drop of the Twin Towers at 9/11? The fires? How many were involved in tgat the site was not handled as a crime site, with all that means? How many were involved in declaring it off limits and forcing rapid transport of all material to be dumped in the ocean or sold as scrap steel for KOrean ships? But that’s another conspiracy story.
As for comparing my speculation to Big Foot, Elvis and a UFO, that’s your privilege and right here. But maybe says a bit about the level of your argument. My speculation is based on solid technology. It all depends on nano and the right funding and mission assignment.
And my motives are not speculative nor Chicken Little. The sky has fallen before, or don’t you believe that either?
I want us to become suspicious of our RWA leaders and the corporatocracy. And not end up like the Soviet citizens of 1934 as detailed in Mandelstam’s biography over her husband.
I have been suspicious since listening to the McCarthy hearings on the radio. And you?
As my last line I will point to Monsanto and it’s poisoning of the agro-business. How many know of that? Several times, warnings have been issued by Dept of Ag officials, and their own stats support it in terms of heifer miscarriages and small seed crop yields post glycofosate treatment. And still the US government ignores it all.
I don’t have to speculate in this case, It is established but ignored. The EU parliament asked and became informed by the leading scientist. Nothing was done. Speculate on that. Is it so that money talks….LOUD?
Suggest you put your polemic pistols back in their holsters. and talk nice again.
You’re welcome in my crusade if I can be in yours: using a famous line by Bob Dylan in his WW3 song.
I suggest you put your polemic back and not get your panties twisted when someone questions a crazy assed theory for being a crazy assed theory, id707.
As for your criticism of my argumentation? If I’m comparing your theory to something ridiculous it is because I think what you are saying is ridiculous and worthy of ridicule.
Again, either you have proof or you don’t.
GeneH
What’s to say. You never back down. That you came running to back up Rafflaw says one thing about you. Isn’t he man enough or do you get involved in everybodies’ battles?
Secondly I put out a little loose specualtion (3 lines) and Rafflaw jumps on me calling me a tin-hatted nut. How cool is that? And thens ask for proof.
I should have said go look for it yourself. It will do the best good in the long run if you find it yourself.
And it could have ended there. Called by him and told him do it yoursslf.
But I had to answer, old reflex. And then you come in dishing out dirt in your usual way, disparaging things at best and at worst it is catastrophes. Justice and good taste and gentlemanly actions? Forget it.
If I had proof of my speculations, I’d be sitting incarcerated for revealing it as being against national security interests as to surveillance systems, planned or real or even studies speculating in such systems.
Or don’t you believe that they DO speculate on what else can be done?
Silly to ask for proof when someone speculates.
Am I the only one who specualates without proof.
No.
Today, MikeS said the President may be Commander in Chief, and he may make promises, but we know that his freedom of action is not determined by himself, but by the corporatocracy.
Now did MikeS have proof of that? No, he was speculating.
And he was not called down by anyone for it. Some agree, some disagree.
So that’s it, that’s all I will say. If you can’t stand speculations then that’s your privilege.
But my privilege is to use them.
WE ALL DO, REPEAT ALL DO. EVERY NEWS REPORT, OPINION PIECE, SCIENCE REPORT, AND MOST OF WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE IS SPECULATION AND OPINION. EVEN THE PROFESSOR DOES.
So I will still be here using these common privileges.
Shame of “Yoo”, shame on all of those who were (and are) complicit…
http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/nsa-whistleblowers-warn-of-secret-spying-programs-that-can-target-anyone/
“National Security Agency whistleblowers William Binney, former technical director; Kirk Wiebe, former senior analyst; and Thomas Drake, former senior official, sit down with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer for an extended interview. The men describe Trailblazer and Stellar Wind, NSA programs designed to intercept Americans’ phone calls, emails and other communications, without the need for warrants or oversight — which they say breaks the law. Thomas Drake describes his decision to reveal the secret surveillance to authorities and the public: “Not only did I discover the wheels had come off the existing vehicle, we were in an entirely new vehicle — in absolute violation of the Constitution. I knew if I remained silent that I would be complicit to the subversion of our own Constitution.””
Great post, rafflaw.
It is an historical fact that the law of torture was not a subject of serious dispute in this country until the Bush administration determined to employ torture in response to the attacks of 9/11. Mr. Yoo’s job was to legitimize torture, and he was ably assisted in that effort by Mr. Jay Bybee, whose reward was an appointment to the, you guessed it, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Bybee’s memorandum to Alberto Gonzales of August 1, 2002, contained the following legal gems:
1. “Congress may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.”
2. “Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution’s sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President.”
In an earlier memorandum to William Haynes on March 13, 2002, Mr. Bybee had declared presidential authority in the treatment of captured combatants to be “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The absurdity of these assertions has been the subject of lengthy threads on this site in the past. And the memoranda themselves were subsequently withdrawn. But they accomplished what they intended-a blurring of the lines.
What the Ninth Circuit has done is permit the architect of a legal misinformation campaign to define the legal context in which his own actions are to be judged. It has adopted the notion that an unconstitutional usurpation of power, it if succeeds in creating sufficient legal confusion, can be rewarded with immunity. And, in the process, Judge Bybee, whose memoranda were not disclosed to the Senate during the confirmation proceedings, has been granted a defense against any impeachment efforts.
id707,
Listen up. My comment to you was civil. If you have a problem with raff? That’s between you two. I wasn’t defending anyone, but I was asking for proof. However, if you simply want to escalate when you don’t have proof and act like a dick when called on it? That’s not only your prerogative, but your problem as well.
I pointed to inherent problems with your theory.
I asked for proof.
You don’t have any proof.
End of story.
As for your attitude over the whole matter? You need to up your meds. Because clearly it is not just your ideas that are crazy.
Mike A.,
“What the Ninth Circuit has done is permit the architect of a legal misinformation campaign to define the legal context in which his own actions are to be judged. It has adopted the notion that an unconstitutional usurpation of power, it if succeeds in creating sufficient legal confusion, can be rewarded with immunity.”
Bingo.
GeneH
You don’t seem to grasp simple facts.
I will repeat: Speculations do not, by their very nature, have proof. There may be evidence but no proof.
Now if you go around here demanding proof of everyone who speculates, then you will have lots to do.
Good luck with that, if you do.
And that was that, to use words heard before.
And again, let me thank you for your attentions. They are always instructive, but not always in ways you may have anticipated, but welcome all the same.
And again you distinguish yourself by holding the low ground using insults. When will you abandon that distinguishing tactic?
id707,
And you apparently don’t comprehend English.
I pointed to inherent problems with your theory.
I asked for proof.
You don’t have any proof.
End of story.
As to insults? You’re the one who started it again, you passive-aggressive shit, so if you want to play victim again, be my guest. But if you want proof of this claim?
My first post:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Without some proof of your chipping/nano-particle assertion? You might as well be claiming Big Foot is following people around with Elvis in a UFO. At best it is rank conspiratorial speculation and at worst it is some kind of (likely baseless) fear mongering. Raff asked for proof. So am I. Why? Because it’s a crazy idea. Consider how many people it would take to implement a conspiracy on that level let alone attempt to cover it up and then reconsider the likelihood of your statement being even remotely true. Throw in the fact that a certain percentage of the populace will get X-Rays or CT scans or MRI’s that would show chips and a certain percentage of the population are prone to have an adverse reaction of some sort (hystemic reaction or otherwise) from nanite exposure and the discovery certain of such a plot tends toward 100%.”
Not one word of insult directed at you. Simply criticism of your idea.
My second post:
“I suggest you put your polemic back and not get your panties twisted when someone questions a crazy assed theory for being a crazy assed theory, id707.
As for your criticism of my argumentation? If I’m comparing your theory to something ridiculous it is because I think what you are saying is ridiculous and worthy of ridicule.
Again, either you have proof or you don’t.”
Again, not one word of insult directed at you. Criticism of your idea. However, that lack of insult directed at you that didn’t stop you from then going on the attack and wrongly claiming you were being attacked when it was your idea being attacked.
So at this point I’ll point out again your repeated pattern of behavior as it regards interacting with men.
You attack others and then play victim when they fight back.
This is called “passive-aggressive behavior”. You primarily exhibit it when dealing with males. With women, you seem to spend a lot of time sucking up and playing the needy card.
Once again, you’ve mistaken me for someone who is going to that kind of behavior from you without addressing it.
If you don’t like that?
Too bad.
Quit acting like a dick. I don’t care what your excuse might be. As long as you act like one, I’ll treat you like you’re acting like one. I would think you’d have learned this simple lesson by now, but apparently learning isn’t your strong suit.
Was that clear enough for you to understand, id707?
I certainly hope so.
Insult, insults, insults. Same ol’ GeneH.
You can have the last word. You couldn’t live without it.
As usual, you avoid the issue; speculations can’t have proofs. But you’re welcome to ask for them.
Useless is as useless does.
Can you point to any insults in my initial comments to you before you went on the attack, id707?
No.
So my point about your behavior is again proven by your response.
Thanks for playing.
GeneH,
Here’s a quote. Your words. Are they insulting to me?
“You might as well be claiming Big Foot is following people around with Elvis in a UFO. At best it is rank conspiratorial speculation and at worst it is some kind of (likely baseless) fear mongering.” GeneH
I felt so. But I still say you don’t get it. You latest called what I said for a theory. Come on, Gene, you who can split a hair with your very glance, let alone with your mind—how can you call my speculation a THEORY?
It’s not even structured and never was intended to be. It is a bunch of loose assertions, and you call it a theory. Yeah, theories do require some backing, but speculations. Thank goodness they don’t require proof.
Why did he come looking for something to call me down on. He found one and called me a nut with a tinhat. How’s that for the first I hear from him? Is that not aggressive. Is it friendly?
id707,
“You might as well be claiming Big Foot is following people around with Elvis in a UFO. At best it is rank conspiratorial speculation and at worst it is some kind of (likely baseless) fear mongering.”
And this is insulting to you how exactly? It attacks your idea. It doesn’t attack you no matter how you want to distort it. You aren’t a victim except to your own now manifest and apparently incorrigible defects.
Let’s look at your words, shall we?
“Playing catchup, may I point to a post where I claimed that soon that newborns in addition to footprints will as part of the routine “shots” will be “chipped” and RFID’d with nano particles. Wherever you are the “network” will know where you are, who you are, and likely who passed the “reading device” together with you.”
“However that may be, there is alraady ample proof in countless journals and articles and are to some degree already imtegrated into the existng infrastructure. Follow the tech section of any reputable newspaper, NYTimes for ex.”
You offered weak, non-specific proof yourself for what you state is a claim. That means you were making an assertion, a declaration, an affirmation.
You were not speculating until better proof was asked for.
That’s what is known as backpedaling.
You’ve mistaken yourself for having any credibility with me at this point.
As to your problem with raff? Take it up with him.
Thanks Mike A. It is amazing that this story did not get bigger play on the national scene. The power of the OLC is so strong it is now evident why the Senate Republicans have filibustered against Obama’s choice for head of OLC.
Hey Shano, that Zimmerman comment was brilliant!
Idealist707, I just read this thread now (had been out of town and generally only follow the Zimmerman/Martin case threads so as to keep my obsessions pure) but let me put in one comment on these ideas. (Beware: it’ll need “set up” for me to make this comment.)
When I was litigating with my ex-husband in the 1980s, I didn’t even imagine that judges would talk to each other or to the lawyers in private without there being paperwork that showed what had happened, and so lots of things that I discovered years LATER simply seemed to NOT be on the landscape at all. Then when I finally got the idea that I would go to the courthouses, pull files myself, and read them from the first page right through to the last page, and read the docket sheets, and investigate things on the plaintiff/defendant computers, and create spread-sheets, I discovered a whole world that I never knew existed.
Fast-forward to 2008. I did not imagine that lawyers who had taken MY case would be carrying on secret correspondences with the adversaries to manipulate me into a settlement for the very reason that state agencies had personnel who were going to end up in trouble if the entire case was exposed, something that would have occurred if my own lawyers represented me within the requirements of the Canon of Ethics. I would never have imagined these things (AND I had no evidence of them — then) so I did not see them, I did not imagine them, and I did not, boo hoo, prevent them.
All of this unstudied ignorance on my part was due to two characteristics of sane people, and I am and WAS a sane person: We are not paranoid and we do not presume that things are happening that we consider, under the circumstances, highly HIGHLY unlikely.
So I have come to believe that sometimes, things happen that we consider, under the circumstances, highly unlikely, and that sometimes, people whose sanity can be called into question (especially if they are without evidence of some of their worries or speculations or premonitions) happen upon things that are actually true.
This is not to say that I think we are carrying microchips or that we soon will be. In fact, I have no opinion at all about that I had been hearing it from people (mothers who had been victimized by the court system, generally, especially those mothers who were very religious) since the early 90s. I never worried about it and I never thought much about it. I always figured that if I became really threatening to anybody who had any real power they’d do away with me so fast nobody would have time to determine the coordinates of my chip. One time a friend of mine asked me if I was scared because my ex-husband had the FBI make a visit to my landlord. I said, “why should I be scared? If they want to be rid of me they won’t visit my landlord at all.”
ODD, HOW QUIET IT BECAME AFTER MALISHA’S COMMENT!
Many ideas and responses (since my name was mentioned).
Obvious ones: How many predicted 9/11?, How many predicted the finance fiasco? How many predicted Obama via Holder proclaining his execution capabilities of American citizens?
Now, who really believe, be honest, that that which we see happening in government tells us anything of what they are planning for tomorrow. How many excerpts from Orwell, how many hints of dire futures—not only from nut blogs and doom,doom prophets—do we need to either get hysterical and run around crying the sky is going to fall—-OR open our minds to the various fact articles and prime newspaper speculatins, and start thinking.
I do not put myself up as a prophet or great collector of data or analyzer. I’m like most, but suspicious since the days of McCarthy.
So when Malisha casts a shadow of suspicion of turpitude over the legal and official branches of our society, then I feel shocked. Here I have learned to never talk to cops. Now if we believe her, I have learned not to trust getting simple justice, ie by the books; unless possibly if I have lawyers watching my lawyers, and lawyers watching the agencies, and lawyers watching the courts.
And I can’t afford them. Can you?
And since I’ve nominated Warren for President, I’d like to ask her to nominate Malisha as our first non-lawyer(?) as cabinet member for the Justice Department.
All those who agree say Aye!
@ Idealist: As for my being a cabinet member in the Justice Department, sorry, can’t serve. (Someone else once nominated me as Minister of Poetry and I would have accepted!) But I could never serve as a member of DOJ because it’s a department of a chimera, and I am (as Edward Lear described himself) “concrete and fastidious.”
Malisha,
The nomination was with thought to reform, not as a figurhead to hide the evil. But understand the reticence to be even for reform purposes.
OT Would we get a good Prez in Warren or can all good things be spoiled? Evne good intentiioned Prezs?
It’s just that a really big big big ship cannot be turned around by folks swimming near it, even if a bunch of them gang up and all push together. I have actually had government people (one, actually a New York Governor!) tell me they did not have the power to do a small, easy, clearly necessary thing (such as appointing a commission or a special prosecutor) because they did not have the power. They did not mean, of course, that they did not have the power, they HAD the power. They meant they were not giving UP any power for that inconsiderable person or on behalf of that powerless group. It’s about power. It’s also about momentum. We’re headed in the wrong direction and have been so for so long, and gathered up so much speed and mass by now, that “reform” is just a word used often for the wrong purpose.
Sorry. I call it as I seezit.
So in my book, all we can do is whatever we can do for individuals. In the Zimmerman case, thanks to the enormous public reaction, we have been able to accomplish something but will it change the whole direction or even the Alexander case? I genuinely doubt it.
Perhaps the feds will come through and surprise me, though. I hope they do.
So sad it is. There is but revolution left. Where is the Mad comics book guy on a poster pointing at me, saying: “A la Bastille, what me worry. That must be the recruiting office in this Mad world. If we could enlist the help of whales……….?
Ahhh! A new thought. The fall of USSR, now is a drunkardh had not seized power. I guess today’s situation
kills that idea.
Next day thought which gives some reason why any lawyer would do a deal behind the client’s back.
Since the law firm is part of the system, it is dependent on the system for quite a few things which you know about but I can only guess about. Would the law firm like the
media companies do a deal to help the agencies just as the media does in not attacking the Prez. (Exceptions perhitted in both directions of course.)
Catering to those with power and pull is not new, especially when it is your life (or the firm’s).
Malisha,
I doubt that the Trayvon Martin case will change anything substantive. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will be misused to sell more guns. You are right that torture and killing are the ultimate power trips for the individuals who practice it.
Yes, Rafflaw, that’s probably right. In fact, right now I bet there are lots of government people silently working out ways to minimize the effect of what was essentially a massive citizen uprising against corruption in the criminal justice system.
Anon Nurse, I re-read several posts here and thought of a “story” from my recent (couple of years maybe) past. I went to a free ABA (you don’t need to be a member) conference called “stranger in a strange land” about how cross-cultural issues affect legal outcomes. Jonathan Turley was actually one of the presenters. The audience had little hand-held devices to “vote” on how they thought various cases came out. Then they’d tell us the real judges’ real opinions in the case and the audience would have been 70% correct or 15% correct or whatever; most of the audience members were attorneys of course.
One case. An East Asian (perhaps Korean, perhaps Chinese, I can’t remember) couple had been in this country many years, more details, I forgot them. The wife admitted, at a certain point, to her husband, that she had had an affair. Something like a week later, he smashed her head with a hammer several times, killing her (not instantly, but effectively). On trial, the defense was a cultural defense: her extramarital affair had shamed him and he had reacted. The audience voted on what they thought the judge had done for sentencing. It turns out that the judge sentenced the man to probation only, but made him promise the judge personally that he would never do that again. (HOW COULD HE?) A “wow sound” passed through the large commodious room. In the silence after the gasps died down, a forensic psychiatrist on the panel commented, “His defense would have been better had he killed his wife immediately upon learning of the affair, rather than a week later!” I shouted out (couldn’t HELP myself): “It did not NEED to be better!” Giggles rolled through the room. Then we went on to the next case (a Muslim taxi driver would not transport folks who had purchased bottled alcoholic beverages at the airport).
Just now I went back to try to see which of your comments made me think of that story, and I could not find it! So if I went OT and got silly, forgive me.
Here’s a story, however, about torture, to get me back into the swing: Decades back I worked as a legal secretary for a lawyer who was just impossible, she just chewed up her secretaries and spat them out. She had just finished driving a competent middle-aged secretary into hysteria and to explain the problem, declared the woman to be “a late-stage alcoholic” although my (and everyone else’s) experience of the woman was that she was perfectly normal and quite competent. When I was assigned to her I said, “Let me out of this position if I can’t do it, OK?” and administration agreed (and later refused, but that’s beside the point). This lawyer and I hit it off, inexplicably. She LOVED ME! She would call me into her office and tell me about her out-of-office experiences, talk “shopping” with me, giggle at jokes with me, I didn’t know what I had done to win her approval but admin was giddy with joy (“no more problems with Jane Doe!”). So one day she called me in and told me that she had been to some kind of big gala at an embassy the night before, and had met a guy who spoke fluent Bulgarian, which she spoke too (“I hardly EVER get a chance to speak Bulgarian to anyone any more!”) and she was crazy about him. She said, with a conspiratorial wink, “He wouldn’t tell me what he does, it’s top secret, but he’s a high-ranking government physiologist…” Apparently I stared at her dumbly because I couldn’t understand why this was meaningful. “Don’t you get it?” she demanded.
???
“Malisha, don’t you GET IT?”
I had to shake my head disconsolately. Get WHAT?
“Malisha, he’s a TORTURER!” She was practically shivering with excitement. I was stunned. It took me literally weeks to work out in my mind what happened in our little conversation in her office. She was saying that it was sexy that the guy was a government torturer working in the Balkans and very respectable in high society inside the Beltway in Washington DC! I had a very persistent series of horrible nightmares after that. I kept waking up in a start, hearing a loud “ping” sound with the fear that a dead body would fall on me. And then I had to go to work and I was actually scared of this madwoman from whom I was taking dictation! I’m sure after that job was over she described me as a late-stage alcoholic or maybe even a heroin addict, who knows.
There was a film produced in Greece soon after the reign of the Colonels was over — I saw it once, but never was able to find it again. The name of it was “Your Neighbor’s Son.” It was a documentary of the charge, trial, interviews with and execution of a torturer in Greece. He was NOT the one who gave the orders; he was a routine, line-worker torturer. Yes, Greece put the actual torturers on trial, not just the masterminds, I don’t remember the ins and outs of the legalities involved. At the end of the film, the man (who chain-smoked throughout his interviews and was unfailingly polite and well spoken), answering the question “Why did you agree to speak with us about all this?” said: “I wanted to tell you what I did, tell you what really happened, and tell you how a monster is made.”
Then they interviewed his father, and I cannot remember if that interview was done before or after the man’s son had been executed. The father closed the film with these words: “I cannot explain what he did. I cannot explain who he was. To me, he was just my son. I am nobody special. I am your neighbor. He is your neighbor’s son.”
“To me, he was just my son.”
I think you have brought up a really good point. I would guess that most people who torture and commit other atrocities are not sociopaths or psychopaths.
I don’t know, but I would guess that most are very ordinary people who have been given a set of assumptions and priorities. The assumptions and priorities lead very naturally to acts that most of us would never commit and that they would never commit outside of a very narrow set of circumstances. That ought to be pretty troubling to all of us.
As for your former boss: haven’t you been keeping up and reading ’50 shades of gray’? Torturers must know all the good stuff. Just don’t forget your safe word.
I have wondered how some women seem to be attracted to men capable of violence and cruelty. Some have offered the conjecture that in some men sex and violence are closely associated. I suppose that if you believe that, then it is an easy step to believe that some woman closely associate sex, love, cruelty and violence.
Well…as long as they are fully informed, consenting adults of sound mind.
Great story Malisha. Prof. Yoo is just someone’s son.
“haven’t you been keeping up and reading ’50 shades of gray’? Torturers must know all the good stuff. Just don’t forget your safe word.”
BFM,
I’m glad you brought up that book which my wife and daughter have read and came away disgusted. I only read page 1, of Chapter 3, my daughter and I share an E reader account and I was stupefied by the bad writing. I wonder why in this time of assault on women’s person-hood, a book has been written and heavily promoted, that extols being the sub in an s/m relationship. Curious.
I had never even heard of “50 shades” until I saw it on these comments, so I googled it. It appears to be downright mockable. Of course the author is laughing all the way to the bank. One Amazon.com reviewer counted how many times the “S” and the “M” frowned at each other (124) and how many times they grinned at each other (124!) and I was done with the idea that I would read even one page. They clearly should have frowned at each other MORE!
By the way, a friend of mine recently saw the play VENUS IN FUR and mentioned the plot. It sounds like a version of the same. Maybe less smiling. (Thank god for small favors.)
If I am ever captured by Yoo’s thugs, and they want me to read 50 Shades of Grey, I will do it. Otherwise, not.
Mike S. and Malisha,
I think I will skip that book!
Malisha, The man was right sadly. These people are not the ones with the strange glare and the tattoos that say ‘I love to hurt people”
I think the Zimbardo experiment proved very nicely (sadly) that it does not take much other then the feeling of even slight power to trun people into monsters.
(http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm)
leejcarol,
Or in lesser stages of power,to turn their heads to regarding people as pawns.
SELECTING PEOPLE (AND GUIDING THRM) BY CHOMSKY
Let me trot out this again by Chomsky. How people who can internalized institutional goals are the ones selected.
And the others rejected.
“People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society.”
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710–.htm
Idealist, yes, and it’s not JUST the educational system (but I think that one has the greatest reach). It’s probably 99% of what we come in contact with, that also filters, filters, filters, all day, every day. If you can’t adjust to a certain amount of that, you really do get horribly roughed up, but if you adjust to all of it, you get effectively annihilated and you’re just a cog. There must be some trick that allows certain people to maintain some measure of independence with dignity, and I guess it’s a lifelong effort to come to the right measure.
That’s why the documentary of “Your Neighbor’s Son” was so interesting to me, and why it lasted so long. I think the man who was condemned, and who gave the interviews, was horrified at his own “monstrosity” but he had probably arrived at it quite honestly. Since he was a torturer, he SAW and EXPERIENCED torture. He was part of his system, and afraid of that same system, and was adjusted to that system, and the equations mapping out who he was were obscure, even to him.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/privatized-torture/
May 14, 2012, 12:35 pm
Privatized Torture
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
On Friday, a federal appellate court ruled that private military contractors allegedly complicit in torture at Abu Ghraib aren’t immune from prosecution. In post 9/11 America, that counts as a significant victory for the rule of law.
As everyone knows, soldiers and civilian contractors at the Abu Ghraib prison committed criminal offenses, with military officials going so far as to hide prisoners from the Red Cross. In 2004, an independent panel of civilian defense experts found that Pentagon leaders helped create the conditions that led to the scandal. “The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline,” the report said. “There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.”
Despite these findings, only low-ranking soldiers were sent to prison, including Lynndie England (she of dog-leash infamy) and her co-conspirator Charles Graner. That was it. Higher-level officials either got away scot-free, or with a reprimand.
Over the last several years, two private military contractors linked to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib have been pleading for the same treatment afforded to Pentagon execs. CACI and L-3 have asserted that their wartime activities are beyond the review of courts and have claimed “absolute official immunity” from litigation. But on Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 11-3 that lawsuits against CACI and L-3 can proceed to a discovery phase.
Hawks may spin the Fourth Circuit’s decision as a victory for bleeding heart liberals. But really this is about preserving the most traditional legal principle there is: that criminals should answer for their crimes. In December, a group of retired military officers filed an amicus brief expressing concern that “persons engaging in shocking behavior that the U.S. military does not itself tolerate for its own members have broad impunity from accountability.”
The alleged behavior, it’s worth remembering, really was “shocking,” as the retired military officers put it. The plaintiffs claim they were deprived of oxygen, food and water, and were subjected to electric shocks. They say the corporate defendants, who were hired to provide “interrogation services,” are guilty of rape and other forms of sexual assault. And here’s the kicker: The plaintiffs were released from detention without charge.
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who helped argue the case on behalf of Abu Ghraib detainees, said it was finally “an opportunity for victims of torture at Abu Ghraib to tell their stories to an American court.” It might also shed some light on the Bush administration’s practice of outsourcing warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan to independent contractors.
Great news anon nurse! I hope it holds up.
The sovereign immunity stuff is essentially shocking and out of place in our modern world anyway, but to extend it to people who CONTRACT FOR PROFIT and then commit crimes while doing so is deliberately criminal and no court should have EVER gone along with that. It’s like letting foreign diplomats who have immunity HIRE PEOPLE to commit crimes for them on our soil and extending to their mercenaries the immunity we grant to THEM.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/15/headlines#5158
Malaysian Tribunal Finds Bush, Cheney Guilty of War Crimes
An ad-hoc tribunal in Malaysia has found former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and six other members of their administration guilty of war crimes. A panel of five judges heard testimony from victims who were tortured at U.S. military prisons around the world. The tribunal says it will send transcripts of its proceedings to the International Criminal Court.
And NO HABEAS CORPUS rights for Bush and Cheney, either!!!
MM — We do NOT have rights, but some of us have privileges. This becomes more obvious the more of us notice that we have no rights. That is, the rights of most evaporate as the privileges of the few solidify. It’s almost as if the rights are feeding the growing privileges…could that be?
Shame on Yoo, again:
John Yoo Criticizes Liberals for Caring More About Torture Than Diversity
The man who helped institutionalize torture argues it’s hypocritical to oppose the promotion of a woman who destroyed evidence of brutal interrogations.
Conor Friedersdorf Apr 3 2013, 10:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/john-yoo-criticizes-liberals-for-caring-more-about-torture-than-diversity/274608/