President Donald Trump gave a startling interview this week in which he expressly stated his belief that “torture . . . works” and stated that he would order torture if his team asks for it to be used on detainees. It is a position opposed not only by the military and both Republican and Democratic members of Congress but, more importantly, United States and international law. In fairness to Trump, he added that his decision would be controlled by the law but also that he believed in the efficacy of torture: “I want to do everything within the bounds of what you’re allowed to do legally but do I feel it works? Absolutely I feel it works.” Under international law, it does not matter if torture is successful or useful. It remains a war crime. Indeed, it was the United States that played a key role in defining torture as a violation of international law. In other words, there is no legal basis for the use of torture or the commission of any war crime under domestic or international authority.
President Trump insisted that we have to “fight fire with fire.” Despite the widespread view that torture is not effective in producing reliable information (and the conclusions of intelligence reports that it did not produce significant intelligence), Trump said that he had “spoken with people at the highest level of intelligence and I asked them the question ‘Does it work? Does torture work?’ and the answer was ‘Yes, absolutely’.”
Fortunately, Defense Secretary James Mattis has clearly ruled out a return to a torture programs and various members of Congress, including Republicans, have warned Trump that they will not allow a return to the program launched by George W. Bush.
To Trump’s credit, he at least called waterboarding what it is: torture. Bush officials danced around the term torture despite long-standing rulings that it is a clear form of torture. Trump did not shy away from the turn but rather openly embraced it.
What is worrisome is that he did not even acknowledge that he would be ordering a war crime and subject the country and himself to potential international charges. Instead he defined our actions by the depravity of our enemies:
“When they’re shooting, when they’re chopping off the heads of our people and other people, when they’re chopping off the heads of people because they happen to be a Christian in the Middle East, when Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since Medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?”
In the end however Trump affirmed that (while he believes torture works) he would yield to the law. That law is clear. Congress prohibited the use of torture, including waterboarding, and such tactics are not allowed under the military code.
If we ever resumed our “enhanced interrogation” program, Trump’s words could be used by an international tribunal. He is shown openly endorsing the use of “torture” — dispensing with the rhetorical evasions of the past Administration. Torture is expressly defined as a war crime under governing treaties and international law. By saying that he believes in effectiveness of torture and the willingness to order torture, Trump has created a record that could be used by other countries to establish knowledge and intent.
Finally, by expressly stating that torture is effective and permitted, Trump’s words could be used to legitimate the torture of American military personnel or civilians.
What do you think?
Listening to Orange Kardashian is torture. He’s already in violation of international and US laws.
let me know when you can get off your butt and get around to identifying in reality with facts your personal opinion.
QUOTES WAR
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” -George Washington
“War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.”-James Madison
“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. The most successful war seldom pays for its losses.” — Thomas Jefferson
“Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.”-James Madison
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”- James Madison
‘A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”- James Madison
George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”
James Wilson: (framer and ratifier): “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . .” (To the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787.)
“Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.” -Thomas Jefferson
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” -George Washington
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” George Washington
“Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands.” George Washington
“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Thomas Jefferson
Gutting the oval office SS would be a start, followed by a real, tangible foreign policy, unlike what we’ve seen under the eight years of the democratic war pigs. If the SS stops creating and funding these groups, and we generally stop droning kids and weddings, things will improve. Take at least a generation, but you have to start somewhere.
More people die under Democratic administrations in the modern world and the Republicans are the war- mongers. Go figure.
Not been the case since Vietnam.
I think WW2, Korea and Vietnam gave the Dems a big lead that the Repubs will never catch up to.
Hopefully. Hopefully W’s casualty numbers in Iraq will not be surpassed in the 21st century.
mespo – let’s not forget WWI or as I heard a teacher describe it W W eye and W W eye eye.
Love it!
Eye Eye? Say Aye Aye! and you get my attention. 😉
Add to your list:
“I’m like a smart person, ok.” – 45
Well, it’s like this, slitting a persons throat = immediate death in the most barbaric way.
Water boarding, = scaring them and they still live.
Why the hell not.? These Animals, need the life scared out of them, if they are soooo brave, able to decapitate people….go for it.!!
Hope, I am not beginning to agree with the Orange One.!!!
When you combine the President’s view with the phrase, “If the President does it it’s not illegal” we have a problem. Is Donald Trump capable of reaching such a conclusion? He already tells us that, “The President can’t have a conflict of interest!” Based on a self-serving legal opinion. How hard will it be to find some flunky to tell him torture is legal if he does it?
enigmainblackcom – Obama lead us to this point. Obama thought he could do not wrong. Why not Trump?
Actually, it was W who showed Obama the way that Trump is now pursuing. It is encouraging that the military disavows torture, but Trump still has the CIA, the organization in charge of torturing whomever is captured and drone strikes that kill families. He also has enough dodgy lawyers, like Bush, to tell him that its all legal.
We can lock them in a room with you, Betty.
I could make the case that the existence of a President Obama led to the response that became Donald Trump. I can’t see how you can make the case that Trump is following his example. Particularly in the area of conflicts of interest.
enigmainblackcom – if Obama had held an actual job at any time in his lifetime then there would be an opportunity for conflicts of interest. However, he didn’t. Trump owns or has his brand on over 500 businesses. He now has his son running those. That is as good as it is going to get and I could not expect more.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.
It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties—says what the states can’t do to you —says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” Barack Obama 2001
Paul,
Obama was a walking, talking, acting conflict of interest with the very oath of office he took. He had no more intent to respect the limits imposed by our constitution than Islamic extremists intend to exist peacefully with “infidels”.
You are blinded as to the qualities of both men. Enjoyed the conversation.
Not at all but how hard is it to find some lame stream media twat to twist the story to their viewpoint. I remind you the left has been responsible for more deaths and tortures over their 100 year plus world wide existence than any other single entity in the history of mankind – depending on todays version. These secular regressives are really NOT nice people.
Consider their striipping the nation of it’s civil rights by pushing aside ‘probable cause’ in favor of ‘ suspicion of.’ Be a lot more wary of that and some flunky finding a reason to use it.
That’s the law saying he doesn’t have a conflict of interest, not his politics.
No it’s a lawyer he pays saying he doesn’t have a conflict.
In any case the agreement reached with the IRS was to let them pursue their complete investigation or evaluation without any other changes to determine the amount, if any, of taxes owed. All they are waiting for is the final amount. Pay it. Release the taxes. However if the 18 year write off is denied then they have to go back to tall the others that took advantage of that loop hole two of which are Clinton Foundation and New York Times. Of the three who can afford it? In the end with assets turned over to others they may end up a. owning the NY Times and changing it to Trump This Today. For the dumb asses that was a joke a that end. It might just go into receivership get sold at auction to pay the debt etc..
And every judge would agree with the plain reading of those words. You, of course, would disagree with the intrinsic meaning of “Happy Birthday.”
Emoluments Clause and White House Ethics Rules. The latter he can change, the former is in the Constitution.
Emoluments doesn’t mean paying for goods or services provided by a Trump business. It means gifts or salaries paid by a foreign government. Franklin toof a snuffbox; John Jay,a horse. No quid pro quo just an outright gift. Unless the foreigners pay more than value for goods or services, it’s not an emolument as you suggest.
It refers to anything of value although it has been violated before. Trump just doubled the membership fee at Mara Lago, increased it by 100,000. Many of those memberships for foreign buyers seeking access to the President (just like the American members buying access). Would an extra $100K over the previous price be more than face value?
It doesn’t apply to quid pro quo. What’s so hard about that? It is not defined as “anything of value.” You’re just wrong on the facts or you just cherry-pick words you like.
I’m interested in how you conceptualized that thought?
Which one? The legal definition of “emolument” ?
enigmainblackcom – it was a DoJ lawyer who Trump did not appoint who said he did not have a conflict of interest, too.
Did anybody change the Constitution? Did the membership fees at Mara Lago just double to $200,000 basically selling access to the President? Is he making decisions about the North Dakota Pipeline while holding a financial interest in one of the companies involved? Will he really never discuss business with his sons? Doesn’t Donald Trump lie daily to the public? It’s clear that many out there simply don’t care. The question is why?
enigmainblackcom – did George Washington or Thomas Jefferson divest themselves of their holdings?
Short answer: No.
No, they kept their slaves.
And gained a country, set on a path that would put an end to that horrible chapter in our history.
On behalf of our founding generation…your welcome!
Your logic is only exceeded by your grammar, “you’re welcome!”
Wow! That’s it? You couldn’t provide a logical response to refute my point so you stooped to the punctuation argument? You apparently forgot the fact discussion boards are the internet version of a face-to-face discussion. So had my comment been made to you in person, you just responded (agape) with the equivalent of…nothing. Unless of course you want to discuss why slave owners (that includes black slave owners) would have prevented the ratification of our constitution.
Anyway, nicely done!
Yes I have nothing for you. You’re initial premise that those particular founders should be thanked was beyond my ability to comprehend. Perhaps in an alternative fact universe somewhere. Discussion boards still give me the choice as to whether to engage with particular posters. Your attitude turns me off and I choose to ignore you unless we’re talking about actual facts and less obnoxiously.
enigmainblackcom,
I’m not surprised in the least that you deem the abundance of historical documentation proving my point to exist in an “alternate fact universe”. Exploring that alternate universe would require an intellectual curiosity you apparently don’t possess. My advice to you then is to stick to correcting grammar. Oh, and whatever you do, don’t sail west.
I have no problem at all discussing facts. You might note I’ve been doing so with several people here. You have introduced exactly zero facts, only opinions I don’t wish to weed thru your insults to explore. Because basic civility eludes you. I choose not to engage.
Well…. that is an excuse but only just…. or something. I still would like the facts on your statement so the ‘reframing won’t work when the hell did you join the secular progressives?” Here I thought you were ….entirely different? But…. mistakes can be made in the fast pace world of blogsport.
I really wish I knew what you’re talking about? I think it’s a strategic ploy to send my mind into an endless loop after which I finally self-destruct.
enigmainblackcom – so, if Washington and Jefferson did not divest themselves, why should Trump?
Trying to discuss one topic at a time. Emoluments was a big concern at the time of the founding of the country Particularly after observing the effects of foreign influence in the European countries the founders came from. Conflict of interest and divestiture didn’t become an issue until later. There’s no doubt he’s in violation of the intention of the founders based on what we already know. Add to that the Russian influence which Trump’s son previously discussed which we have no way of determining based on Trump’s unprecedented failure to divulge his taxes.
BTW, are you trying to say Trump doesn’t have conflicts of interest based on the meaning of the words and that in your opinion he is not legally in conflict or don’t you even see a conflict at all?
enigmainblackcom – Trump has no more of a conflict of interest than Washington or Jefferson.
I could agree with you that no President can be completely without conflict of interest. I respectfully submit that Trump, especially given his foreign investment has greater conflicts. One example worth examining is the list of Muslim countries he named in his immigration Executive Order. There were countries that seemingly met the criteria like Egypt and Turkey, not on the list that coincidentally have Trump investment properties. Did his own financial considerations come into play?
enigmainblackcom – imagine you have 550 companies, many of them just under your brand. Now imagine you are writing an executive order preventing certain Muslims from temporarily coming to the United States. Now try to imagine where each and every one of those companies is located. Got all that?
On a good day I have trouble finding my car keys, much less remember 550 companies I own. Methinks the protesters, protest to much.
If you were Donald Trump do you imagine you’d forget where the Trump Hotels are? How about who your financial backers are? How many of his business partners has he introduced at his events since becoming President-Elect. Your argument seems to be going from “he has no conflicts” to “he has so many conflicts that he can’t remember them so it doesn’t matter.”
enigmainblackcom – Trump builds his own hotels and he sells his brand to other hotels and takes a cut off the top. He used to have his son and daughter run the business and he signed the contracts.
I understand how he sells his name and has basically no risk in those ventures. He’s been looking to do deals in Russia for years, how harsh has he been towards them? How many deals has he already done with Russia? How much does he owe Russian banks? I don’t know the answers to those questions. None of us do.
enigmainblackcom – one of his franchisees wants to do business in Russia and China. It is not necessarily Trump himself. Remember, any hotel built in Moscow comes equipped with microphones. It is an added feature. Some have cameras.
Heh, heh… In case you forget your camera you can just get a copy of the tape.
““Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” – Donald Trump, Jr
“For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.”
Donald J. Trump
Which one is the liar?
Your claim your place to back it up I’m a fan of Ukraine and Moldova myself and support independence for Sibera and restoration of Finlands province of Karelia? I can also see SOME use in Lithuania with help from Poland and others buildinmg a new access route along their border with Poland to the Russian oblast of Kaliningrad. Access to a warmer water port than St. Petersburg is one of the reasons Russia went after the Black Sea outlet – and stopped right there. What were the results of Kerry and Clintons side deals on that particular problem?
My claims and your comment seem to have nothing in common?
That is because your claims don’t go anywhere. So why disappoint the readers completely. At the least they will in some weeks get a critical review of a book that got four stars on goodreads and a movie that was panned by critics but then I really don’t like critics. As for the rest? No one knows it went up a two foot flagpole hung limp and ……..went to sleep.
enigmainblackcom – the two statements do not invalidate each other. It has long been posited that Trump has been borrowing money from Russia. So, money coming from Russia, but no assets there is no problem.
You’re right in that both statements can be true at the same time. But money coming from Russia could be a problem. The Los Angeles Times reported, “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”
Typically the lender of last resort tends to charge higher interest rates, you might think of them as loan sharks. Demanding either a higher rate of return of special favors. Has Trump contemplated any special favors for Russia lately? Kellyanne Conway says he’s “considering” removing the sanctions against Russia. Can you concede the possibility of a conflict worth investigating?
enigmain…:
Got any tips on the stock market since you’ve mastered divining intent of folks. On the two quotes about Trump’s Russian holdings, they were made eight years apart. Maybe you can supply the missing part about whether he had the same Russian holdings in 2016 as he did in 2008. If not, the answer to your question is that the liar is, of course, you.
I’m sure his tax returns would be of some help. Assuming of course he doesn’t cheat on his taxes. Oh wait, the Trump Foundation whose returns are public has recently admitted to “self-dealing” and the foundation is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General. Apparently he didn’t get bought off like Pam Bondi in Florida (who Trump just hired) and the Texas AG.
I forgot to give you a stock tip. Energy Transfer Partners, constructing the Dakota Access Pipeline. Rick Perry serves on the board. Donald Trump’s transition team says Trump himself sold his stock without any proof. Of course nobody in that group would give us an alternative fact. Oh wait, Kellyanne Conway thinks they’re a positive attribute.
I’m sure his tax returns would be of some help. Assuming of course he doesn’t cheat on his taxes.
Because there is nothing to back up any of those opinions except some one else’s opinions usually from unacceptable sources and their personal opinons. If there were you would have given direct quotes from stated reputable sources.
I thought you were far above following the white identify secular regressives do what we say nonsense in your comments. Their excuse is voluntarily being part of a collectivist whole not allowed to think or reason.
.
Torture works, but you have to ask the right questions. You can’t have them admitting to the Lincoln assassination. Every man whose been married knows that torture works.
Like da, of course torture works. People will say almost anything, so if accuracy is desired, ‘pretty please’ must first be uttered by the interrogator.
We got taste of that in SERE school. Not pleasant at all and I can see where it’s a minimal method that does work but when you go down that road and then get administrations like that last one that was intentionally setting DHS up to be a SchutzStaffel I’d rather see a firm standard of No. One never knows when we might get the fascists back and that stands for using any and all means to control – invented by the people that gave us National and International Socialism and Secular Rrogressives.
As for Trumps comment you would rather he lie about it. A. It is useful but B. people will say anything to get it stopped so that brings up how do you know it’s the truth. In reading the whole article all I saw was an honest response and know what? Let’ draw a contrast. How far will the government go? How about the water torture style use of TSA against an entire population none of whom were charged, tried or convicted or how about the suspension of civil rights hanging over our heads?
Personally i’m glad we chased the real terrorists out of office.
Blitheringly incoherent.
Seig me no heils comrade I don’t serve THE PARTY nor i’ts daily version of THE TRUTH. and as far as DDT is concerned Rachel Carson was nothing more than a mass murderer who offered no solutions and no replacement while thousands perished from hunger and disease. So much for the fascist left.
I see you lost the unions too. Pretty soon your party HQ will be someone’s garage.
Plus, my I ask WTF is wrong with some of you people??? Here we are facing an enemy that chops peoples heads off, burns them alive, drowns them, rapes women, etc. and films it on youtube for fun — and you bunch of damn idiots want to start the conversation off by telling them how nice and civilized we are??? How finicky and persnickety we are??? How we are way too polite to do bad things to them like smack them around, and beat the crap out of them.
Some of you clowns do not live in the real world.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“. . . you bunch of damn idiots want to start the conversation off by telling them how nice and civilized we are???”
No one makes this argument, Fromm girl.
By the same token, do you expect a large swath of the world to accept war from us for almost two decades without fighting back? Really, do you?
What would your cats do?
People push back, the same as you would do if in their position. Acceptance of instigators need be acknowledged.
But, hey, sorry to upset your cush life.
While I wholehearted agree with the fundamental right of vigorous self defense, I don’t advocate becoming the barbarian to defeat the barbarian.
mespo – sometimes you have to become the barbarian to defeat the barbarian. Until Los Pepes started off members of the Medellin cartel, the police never made any head way against them.
I’m Nietzschean on that one, Paul: “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
PaulCS is right. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and fight fire with fire. If it was me, the potential of having information would be the only thing keeping an Isis prisoner alive. If he had no info I needed, there would be a summary execution, period. When an enemy gives no quarter, then none should be expected, the Hague be damned.
I do not feel the same way about Taliban prisoners.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The problem with your “get dirty” theory is that you become a war criminal and lose the respect of just about every other state actor who will refuse to cooperate with you in fighting terrorism.
If someone loses respect for us because we waterboard an Isis prisoner, then I am not of the opinion that their respect is a valuable thing. Screw ’em. They obviously have their heads up their rear ends.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No man is an island.
mespo – I think, therefore I am an island. 🙂
Descartesian!
Maybe, but all women are islands. (Think about it, because believe it or not, that is a very profound thought!)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporters
Men are peninsulas.
Squeeky – this is too profound for me. I need an explanation. 😉
I think she means profound like “Islands in the stream / That is what we are / No one in between / How can we be wrong? / … And we rely on each other, ah,ha.”
(Apologies to Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers)
@Mespo and PaulCS
No, I mean it in a Jungian sense. Women are more contained within themselves than men. More chthonian. Men are more outward, sowing their little wild oats hither, thither, and yon. You see it in sports. Men join teams, and compete as groups. Men need other people, and tend to live in the real world.
Women though compete against each other, and can reproduce their little crew of people. Which is why women so often seem to live in their own little special universe, their own little island of reality. Which sadly is too often teeming over with irrationality and craziness.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You’re too tough on women. The ones I know are pretty strong and socially engaged.
@Mespo
Maybe, but most of the news ones I meet are in a divorce setting while working for Penelope Dreadful. I do the “intake” on them, and I am becoming very jaded. I am glad that I am not a man and out there having to mate with some of these idiots, or have one for a mother.
My God, but as a group they are horrible, and crazy to boot. At least 85% or so.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
mespo – although I agree with in general, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Ask the fire fighters.
They use water.
mespo – you every fight a forest fire? You know the fire fighters backset fires to stop the spread of the fire.
ISIS is more like a candle for now.
Motto of the secular regressives. Wait until they find out all those lanti-civil rights laws Obama put in place did not exclude anyone. I’m going to LMAO.
My goodness, you expect the typical pussy-$$ crap from Trump???
“Oh no, I would never do anything to hurt a member of Isis! If we catch one of the errant young lads, then it is ice cream and cake five times a day to go along with the prayers!
Trump is not one to give away the store, or cede a position from the onset. Isis needs to fear him, and you don’t get there by being one of the oh-so civilized schmucks we see far too much of. Let that murderous Isis and terrorist scum have to look over the shoulder, and wonder just what is in store for them.
Our country has become so pussified that when we do execute some murderer, it has to quiet and polite, by lethal injection. Heck, fry ’em in the electric chair, or drop them from the gallows, or gas them, or shoot them. Bad people need to be afraid.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You’ve got eight cats, or so, right? Still living in your parent’s garage, or, um, outbuilding?
You’re so brave.
I agree with Squeeky. We used to waterboard other kids back when we were in grade school. It works. Kids will squeel when you put their foot to the wheel.
But folks. Trump said he will follow the law and that waterboarding was unlawful. Over and out. Not worth the shout.
Why is this interview startling? Trump has been saying exactly this for a year and a half. It’s about time that we stopped saying we’ll wait and see what he does. It’s clear that he’ll do what he has said he’ll do.
I, unlike most Americans, am a military veteran, and do not see Water boarding as torture. Yes it does make many fear for their lives. But when all is done you walk away undamaged. Scaring someone is not torture. No matter what John McCain says.
I also served. So what? It is immaterial what you or I or John McCain believe. Torture is prohibited under domestic, treaty and international law. Waterboarding has been held to be a form of torture in the courts of this country for decades. Yet every time another authoritarian leader wants to strike a tough guy pose, he trots out torture threats and like timid lemmings we all leap into another morally corrupt debate on the “efficacy” of torture. It’s gotten old.
Beat to the punch, by the best.
In the main, I agree with you on all points. However, how would the doctrine of necessity apply in a scenario like this: a US pilot ejects over ISIS controlled land and is escaping and evading as he was trained to do. As we have seen in the case of the Jordanian pilot captured and tortured and burned alive by ISIS, the group adheres to no international norms in regards to prisoners. We have in our possession a captured ISIS member who has knowledge of where our pilot is located in a general sense he having seen the plane go down. What level of pressure may we apply to obtain information about our airman to locate him before the barbarians do? Does the doctrine of necessity excuse our use of torture to save our guy? How would you proceed?
Oops, should have specified the questions are posed to Mike Appleton.
The doctrine of necessity. What a crock. You and Alan Dershowitz need to get a room. This doctrine is like three guys stuck in a life boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean without food for two months and then two of the three deciding to eat the third as a necessity.
The Executive is not the Judiciary and this is not the case of the prisoner holding the key to his jail cell for contempt. In other words, the Executive cannot mete out punishment to a prisoner for failure to do something the Executive imposes and that’s exactly what waterboarding is intended to do.
Steve:
Don’t trouble yourself, Steve. It’s a legal doctrine stretching back to Henry of Bracton in medieval times who surmised it from Roman law. William Blackstone, the most famous of authorities on English Law, also wrote about it. It’s been applied several times in the modern era. Of course, only lawyers would know about it.
mespo: Oh, I’m not put out. I vaguely remember reading it about it in my first year of law school in the Dudley & Stephens case:
From Wikipedia
“This defence was used in the early trial of Regina v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC, where four shipwrecked sailors were cast adrift in a small boat without provisions. To save themselves, the three strongest decided to eat the fourth, the 17-year-old cabin boy. The court ruled that cannibalising the boy was not urgently necessary. Even though the cabin boy would almost certainly have died of natural causes, the sailors killed the boy intentionally and were guilty of murder. There was some degree of necessity arising from the threat of starvation but, at any moment, a ship could have sailed over the horizon to save them as, indeed, the three were rescued. Since they could never be sure that the killing was actually necessary from one minute to the next, the defence was denied. Cannibalism itself is not an offence so long as the death occurs naturally.
“Dudley and Stephens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later reduced to just six months in prison. The third man, Brooks, was not tried, as he had not participated in the murder. The principles from this case form the basis of the defence of necessity not being available for murder.”
Neither should it be available for torture of someone the Executive merely suspects has information.
Get the room.
Of course, you’re off track as usual. This Doctrine of Necessity as used in international law, applies to state actors and their extra-legal actions to restore order or protect a vital interest. In order to invoke the doctrine of necessity: (1) The invoking State must not have contributed to the state of necessity, (2) Actions taken were the only way to safeguard an essential interest from grave and impending danger. And no, it’s not the same as the one used in criminal law tio excuse cannibalism or in the bankruptcy court to fashion remedies. So, maybe my roommate has a point after all. I’ll tell Alan D. you are sufficiently contrite.
Where do I send my bill for teaching you the law?
Typical shi’ite from one who thinks himself a slippery fish. The law you cite was from an arbitration between Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, i.e., an insurance company’s claim against Argentina before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. You apparently don’t distinguish investment disputes from torture. Apart from being starkly disingenuous, you and Dershowitz seem to be so far up each others intestines that it makes sense to you, but then again most fascists think torture is good business judgment.
What’s more, international law has nothing to do with it. The President of the United States cannot violate our laws, criminal or otherwise, and necessity is no defense to the federal statute prohibiting torture.
Furthermore, even if this were a matter of international criminal law, the ICC does not recognize a humanitarian necessity defense.
Steve:
Gee, you’ve come a long way since a “what a crock” (when you had no idea what I was talking about) to being on a lifeboat somewhere in the South Atlantic trying to eat the cabin boy (when you thought it was criminal law) to finally figuring out we’re talking about international law. Glad we shamed you into some research even if it’s wrong. I suggest you read “Necessity in International Law” by Jens David Ohlin and Larry May so you won’t look quite so out of your depth. I’d concentrate on Part C but since it’s all new to you, I’d read the whole thing. You can try to use Wikipedia as your research, if you like, but most lawyers don’t.
I’ll let you retract that silly comment about international law having nothing to do with torture, too, since my question to Mike A (and not you since I couldn’t care less what you think) was specifically about the Doctrine of Necessity in international affairs and not your uninteresting one about federal criminal law, which a few comments before, you were touting (clumsily) as the thrust of the issue. By the way, I never mentioned the President’s role in this but, hey, why let a few facts get in the way of your rant.
And as an aside, you couldn’t carry Alan Dershowitz’ brief bag.
Class dismissed.
Nice try. The discussion was about torture and you claimed it has nothing to do with criminal law, let alone the ICC, in international affiars. You cited an international business law which you’ve conveniently tried to squirm your way out of. You’ve been excusing yourself too long on this forum, bud.
Grow up.
Steve, you’re just too dumb to run on this track. Try the kiddie track.
Well, since you’ve decided you can only be a teacher and not a student, do tell how invoking the defense of necessity would insulate Donald Trump after he continues torture in violation of the federal torture statute and under the war crime and crimes against humanity provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (were the US to be a signatory), let alone an adjudication against the US under the UN’s International Court of Justice.
Your claim is apparently based on Article 25 of the International Law Commission (which has been “relied upon frequently in investment treaty arbitrations”), namely,
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act: (a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and (b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if: (a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or (b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
http://biicl.org/files/3107_impactofthearticlesonstate_responsibilitypreliminarydraftfinal.pdf . See p.167, et seq.
So, do tell:
1) Do you have any modern domestic or international case opinion that supports a meritorious affirmative defense to a charge of torture using necessity?
2) Do you have any evidence that the federal torture statute permits such a defense?
3) And, finally, as a matter of morality, do you have any evidence that the US has not contributed to the “situation of necessity” in terms of torturing Muslims?
Enquiring minds . . .
So now you have taken a statement “I believe torture works,” and a follow up “It’s illegal” and another “so we cannot use it and violate the law? and; suddenly it becomes ‘and now that he has committed this crime.” which added up makes ask “who are you really working for?”
The Clintons?
Goldman Sachs?
Bernie Sanders
Benita Pelosillyni
The New York Times
The two previous Attorney Generals?
Senator Shumer?
ISIS?
One of the Mullahs?
A disgruntled polling firm that got it wrong?
A coalition of college students turned snowflakes
A Canadian Culture warrior?
The firm of Soros, Lykoff, Carville and Reid”
“Or Evita Peron’s Clone?
Just wondered.
(USFS is Used Spit For Sale) it’s run by that guy who gets Hillary all her crap
mmmmm
BLM or BLM either one?
Hunt and Heinz purveyors of fine fake catch up and side deals??
This is getting good but ladies and gentlemen it is a good lesson in how twisted the se propadists of ht eleft really are.
GOT IT! Michelle Antoinette!!!
Michael: All I can say to that is “huh?” 🙂
Actually, I read mespo as stating that necessity is a defense to torture. Necessity was back in the common law a choice really between two evils, where the defendant chooses between two courses of action, one which violates the law and the other which doesn’t and provides for the defense of necessity, and for that reason I brought up the case of the boat and three persons starving to death. The two guys who ate the third were convicted of murder. I hadn’t read that case in 22 years, so forgive me if I didn’t have the facts exactly right.
The essence is this: Your honor, I had no choice but to break the law.
Fast forward to the use of torture. There isn’t a second evil involved and if there is one, it’s almost assuredly legal.
Next, mespo adds that this isn’t about criminal law but international law. There’s no international criminal law? Horsehockey. It’s really about criminal law in the context of torture, contrary to what mespo says.
Then, mespo cites some modern International Law Commission, Art. 25, definition of the defense of necessity and starts rambling about Blackstone as if this modern definition is anything akin to the common law. (From the Art. 25, Commentary: (1) The term “necessity” . . . is used to denote those exceptional cases where the only way the State can safeguard an essential interest threatened by a grave and imminent peril is, for the time being, not to perform some other international obligation of lesser weight or urgency. . . .” I find this international definition is used “frequently” in international contractual matters with the IMF and World Bank trying to press defaulting sovereigns to repay their loans. More importantly, by its commentary, the ILC’s intent was that it be used only as a last resort. Mespo seems to think 9/11 and the rogue ISIS lover wearing a backpack chock full of explosives permits this modern definition to be invoked. Torture is not a means of last resort, but a lazy shortcut by uncivilized humans of unscrupulous means.
There’s not much in common between this modern ILC language and the common law criminal defense of necessity, let alone that neither the federal torture statute nor any other federal statute nor the International Criminal Court recognize it.
What’s more telling is the US was not a treaty member of the ICC at the time of its creation because of the Bush Administration and one of seven countries that did not vote for the Rome Statute. The others are: Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, and Yemen. War crimes and crimes against humanity are not conducive to good relations with the ICC.
First of all it didn’t exist decades and decades ago. Secondly your third sentence is exactly what the President said. How did that get in their the rest is just more tired old preprogrammed secular progressive daily ranting. Yes you losers are getting old but….did you ever think of getting a night job as a comedian.
I feel confused every time that President Trump talks. He is ready to do torture according to the law, but he is writing the law, since the law was that torture is not allowed until what? One day ago when he decided that torture is right? He also does not believe in science. Scientific studies all over the world had proven torture totally useless since with torture you can get most of the victims to confess to whatever you want them to say. Wisdom demands a lot of study and understanding of life, human nature and what surrounds us, not immediately but across the infinite. What does President Trump knows that scientists don’t for him to deny all the scientific knowledge accumulated through ages? G
You should feel confused it’s hard to make up that much stuff but then subjectivism teaches not to worry we have a ruling class that will explain everything in the mean time don’t worry, be happy, and do was we tell you without the need for thinking.
See …fairy tails are better than reality and tylenol combined!
I think he needs to check into the nearest mental health facility for an evaluation. He had already stated that he had changed his mind about torture (to be against it) when interviewing Mattis for the SecDef job.
It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to recognize that a person communicates in a steady stream of contradictions. That behavior may be on the schizophrenia spectrum.
Boooooorrrrrrrinnnnnggg. From the self admitted uneducated! No wonder you fools lost.
Ho hum the mantra of the preprogrammed secular regressives for the day. Stay tune for tomorrows version
How to tell if you have the right answer:
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-scholars-method-harvesting-crowd-wisdom.html
Does it apply here?
Abu Ghraib.
“They hate our freedom.”
No way this torturing monster and usurper will EVER qualify as MY President.
You wrongly apparently think anyone gives a crap. NO one is POTUS of any individual citizen. Trump’s title is “President of THE UNITED STATES,” not President of “Rather Drive.” Read this title slowly and out loud. Maybe after a couple thousand times the light might come on in your wittle head.
If jobs and income improve, and if personal security improves during Trump’s first term, prepare for eight years of Trump.
You should ‘give a crap’, ignoring you second sentence of, “NO one is POTUS of any individual citizen”.
Great thought, Joseph; stunning, really.
Then you say: “Trump’s title is ‘President of THE UNITED STATES,’ not President of ‘Rather Drive.'”
What does this mean? Is Rather Drive where you live, or someplace you’d rather forget?
Then you say: “Read this title slowly and out loud. Maybe after a couple thousand times the light might come on in your wittle head.”
Do you mean the title of this thread, which is “Trump: Torture Works” or did you mean the titles alluded to in your pretensions of syntactical usage?
Otherwise, great emotional rant, bro; hope to hear more from you.
“Is Rather Drive where you live, or someplace you’d rather forget?”
Check the name of the person he was responding to…
I’m sure he will be greatly disappointed to hear that.
I’m curious Rather, what do you consider the qualifications necessary to by YOUR President?
But no facts only personal opinion from one of the loser collective. Programming for the day ho hum.
Oh, I forgot, it was only Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England that did this.
Not policy at all, just the proverbial ‘bad apples.’
Torture puts American lives in danger – the enemy is more likely to fight to the death than surrender; and hopefully “take a few out ” with him. It is also not used primarily to extract information, but to obtain false confessions for propaganda purposes. Read the newspaper reports after the Vietnam POW’s were returned, and how shocked America was, finding out that POW’s were tortured – because it was unthinkable just 40 years ago. We’ve lost our morality.
Fourty years beore Vietnam would be Korea and WWII and in both cases torture was used – by the fascist left. Before that and back into history it’s been used. Today it’s the bully in the school yard just like it’s always been or the Fourth Branch of Government.
I don’t think you have any morality to make such a statement. Just a lack of education.
This is very bad.
Invoke article 4 of the 25th amendment right away!
Which part is bad; the part where he stated that he believes “torture . . . works” or that as the President of the United States “I want to do everything within the bounds of what you’re allowed to do legally…”?
We’ve become so accustomed to President’s saying one thing and doing another that to be open and honest is somehow viewed as an impeachable offense. We’ve become so accustomed to President’s ignoring the rule of law that we have to fear them doing just that when we discover something about them that they believe. I can understand that fear. We just went through 8 years where the rule of law was deemed a hindrance and therefore ignored to forward an agenda that our own citizens natural rights life, liberty and property were actually harmed.
This will be a learning curve for many people. Having a President that makes campaign promises and then follows through with those promises…oh my, lock the doors! Having a President that says things that eliminates the need for the MSM to translate…God forbid! Having a President that strikes fear in the minds of our enemies…say it ain’t so! Having a President that will actually subordinate his office and his personal beliefs to our constitution…IMPEACH NOW!
Trump is a pathological liar.
The guy has been in office a week, what has he lied about?
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/charles-blow-lays-bare-donald-trumps-war-truth-itself You need to familiarize yourself with characteristics of a pathological liar.
Joe – we just spent 8 years learning the war on truth from Obama and his minions. Trump is just following in his tiny footsteps.
Joe,
After the last 8 years, who isn’t familiar with the characteristics of a pathological liar. Damn, even when Jonathan Gruber told everyone he was lying, the Left denied it. The characteristics have been IN YOUR FACE for 8 years; it’s the TRUTH that folks like you refuse to acknowledge.
Ryan will only impeach should his approval Trump’s ratings drop below 30 percent and he might just ask him to resign. As to the constitution many think he is already violating it.
“As to the constitution many think he is already violating it.”
Would any of those people be the same ones that gave Obama a standing ovation for telling them he had a phone and a pen and would do what he wanted if they didn’t? And of course the constituents that reelected them to office? Those constitutional scholars?
One could only hope that there are some constitutional scholars that are not blatantly partisan. Former Bush lawyer Plant comes to mind.
Joe,
You have a bad habit of making a general statement (without supporting evidence), and when challenged to provide the citation you complete dodge the question. I get that you have opinions about many different things but if those opinions aren’t ever rooted in anything provable then why should anyone give you the time of day? Prove something, bring something to the table that others can learn from.
The TPP promise being satisfied for the time being only goes so far. Trump’s a fascist, and shielded by the TPP he may very well make economic decisions that are equally bad inviting trade wars if not military wars.
“Trump’s a fascist, and shielded by the TPP he may very well make economic decisions that are equally bad inviting trade wars if not military wars.”
One week in and you declare him to be a fascist? Based on what, your fortune-telling skills? I’ll stick with actual facts in evidence and challenge him WHEN he ignores the rule of law and the separation of power.
Olly, Trump’s been a fascist since Daddy gave him his bank account. I’ve always seen him in this fashion, and I’m not the only one:
“Fascism … discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.” Benito Mussolini (The Doctrine of Fascism (1932))
Mussolini was the guy who equated fascism to the corporate state.
Not my idea. Jus’ sayin’.
“I’ve always seen him in this fashion, and I’m not the only one”
You and others are entitled to your opinions of the private life of Donald Trump: However our country abandoned character as a qualifier for President a long time ago. Even the concepts of federalism, constitutionalism and the separation of powers have given way to a more utilitarian view of the purpose for government. How else do we find candidates for the office who are perceived to be Marxists, Fascists and Socialists deemed to be “qualified” but an Originalist/Constitutionalist is run out on a rail? The “Trump is not My President” cry is evidence of the mentality that their measure of the office is not based on the fidelity to the rule of law first; no, the measure is the President’s fidelity to the tribal interests of his/her supporters, regardless of the constitution, regardless of the separation of powers.
At this point it does not matter what ideology/worldview Trump had in his private life. He is the sworn President of the United States and his actions MUST adhere to a constitutional standard. This was the same requirement many us had for Obama and why many of us opposed much of what he did; not because of D or R not because of Left or Right, but because he was abusing the power of the office. Plain and simple. If Trump moves in violation of his oath of office, he will be similarly opposed by myself and many that believe the way I do.
Amen and pass the ammunition. THANK YOU OLLY!
(psst some of these people still don’t think we exist. Let’s not disillusion them until the next elections and the kick them in the other knee.)
Olly: “At this point it does not matter what ideology/worldview Trump had in his private life. He is the sworn President of the United States and his actions MUST adhere to a constitutional standard. This was the same requirement many us had for Obama and why many of us opposed much of what he did; not because of D or R not because of Left or Right, but because he was abusing the power of the office. Plain and simple. If Trump moves in violation of his oath of office, he will be similarly opposed by myself and many that believe the way I do.”
I agree. Obama lost me when he was directly involved with the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Ukraine (no matter how sloven that guy), which caused the annexation of Crimea, and when he leveled Libya and used kill lists to assassinate people with no constitutional authority to do so. Trump gets no free ride either.
Obama lost me before the 2008 election once I heard from his lips that he regretted the constitution was interpreted as a negative charter. His redistribution of wealth position cemented my opinion of him. His actions after proved my judgment was wise. I disqualified Trump through the primaries merely because I could find no evidence that he said he will respect the rule of law and separation of powers. Clinton, never.
But, can you guess what the person pictured did?