After 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.
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.
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.
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.
What’s for dinner?
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.
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.
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.
How does anyone discuss with the loud speaker of an automaton blaring brass?
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.
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.
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.
Mike Spindell:
I am hearing the brass band comment in my head again!
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.
Intellectual and cogent response Bob. As usual. After all it was only a sentence.
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.
Scott,
Look up perseveration I think you’ve got it. Boring.
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.
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.”
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.
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.