tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post77923640663019197..comments2024-03-19T00:44:18.309-05:00Comments on Althouse: "I've spent my whole career learning to settle down unruly college students who have not done the reading."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71822063030591549122010-01-19T23:53:58.754-06:002010-01-19T23:53:58.754-06:00Please cite a law against torture that was broken....Please cite a law against torture that was broken. What is the relevant text? Who broke it? What is the punishment? What court has jurisdiction? <br /><br />You ignore these questions because you are an unserious half-ass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73569954718212967492010-01-19T22:32:28.490-06:002010-01-19T22:32:28.490-06:00Seven, the Constitution was only part of what I po...Seven, the Constitution was only part of what I pointed to, and the least of it.<br /><br />As for Yoo, he's essentially insignificant, if grotesquely evil. The "point he was trying to make" is just his standard cover story excusing his complicity in the crimes that have followed from his work. He's just a toadying little functionary who served his purpose, who was chosen because they knew he would serve their purpose: to offer specious cover of false legality to that which is expressly illegal. Jack Goldsmith called Yoo's opinions slapdash and poorly reasoned and he rescinded Yoo's memo. (Also, the laws against torture have not been rescinded or revised; Yoo simply crafted his own ad hoc redefinition of torture to fit the administration's needs.)<br /><br />It it hadn't been Yoo, it would have been some other previously anonymous administration hack willing to advance himself on the backs of those we have kidnapped, tortured and murdered in our terror war, (a few of whom have even been actual terrorists).Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18925807259165394262010-01-19T19:47:09.284-06:002010-01-19T19:47:09.284-06:00What does the Constitution have to say about jail ...What does the Constitution have to say about jail time and fines? What are the elements that must be proven to show cruel and unusual punishment? <br /><br />And you obviously missed the whole point that Yoo was trying to make: the reason he is famous is because he advised the government concerning <i>what was legal under current law</i>. <br /><br />Okay. Go back to fantasy world now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15735760374311818392010-01-19T10:38:22.874-06:002010-01-19T10:38:22.874-06:00We all know the 8th Amendment is not a "statu...We all know the 8th Amendment is not a "statue," but it's also not a "statute."Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73460290089974890992010-01-19T10:37:22.005-06:002010-01-19T10:37:22.005-06:00The full Greenwald link is:
http://www.salon.com/...The full Greenwald link is:<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/<br />2009/01/18/prosecutions/Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87135905400169866282010-01-19T10:34:55.721-06:002010-01-19T10:34:55.721-06:00Seven, if you don't have the wherewithal to lo...Seven, if you don't have the wherewithal to look it up yourself, you could at least have seen references in Fredor Frederson's posts.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture<br /><br />http://www.amnestyusa.org/counter-terror-with-justice/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/id/2100460/<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/<br /><br />Also, our Constitution bans torture in its prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." Obviously, the 8th Amendment is not a statue, but the Constitution lays out the foundation of what is permitted under the law and is the lodestar of our system of government and law.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68365822641647135052010-01-19T03:06:44.106-06:002010-01-19T03:06:44.106-06:00Robert Cook -- Under what statute is anyone guilty...Robert Cook -- Under what statute is anyone guilty of any crime? It's not enough to run unpleasantly at the mouth.<br /><br />You can't put people in jail by fiat based on your own warped ethical sense, though, of course, you would love nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38975701729351981432010-01-18T20:40:39.149-06:002010-01-18T20:40:39.149-06:00Synova
The world has got to be laughing at us.
T...Synova<br /><br /><i>The world has got to be laughing at us.</i><br /><br />That's bad enough, but it's the serious reaction of the guys who are planning to destroy us that I'm really concerned about.<br /><br />And, I'm a little worried about the nuts who think that defending ourselves by taking the fight to the Bad Guys amounts to "terror wars of mass murder abroad". They are not as marginalized in the Dem party as one would hope.From Inwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18054860754381763302010-01-18T17:19:03.630-06:002010-01-18T17:19:03.630-06:00"The underwear bomber's father called the..."<i>The underwear bomber's father called the U.S. Embassy and expressed his concerns about his son's radicalism to U.S. authorities. If the U.S. was known as a country that routinely tortures and mistreats prisoners, do you think it would have been more or less likely that the bomber's father would have contacted the authorities?</i>"<br /><br />Captured, alive. Provided medical care. Well fed. Waterboarded, but alive. Not electro-shocked, not beaten, no fingernails pulled out, not raped, but alive. And probably not even waterboarded... just interrogated without the opportunity to lawyer up.<br /><br />Oh, my freaking dog.<br /><br />The man is from Nigeria... probably one of the places people get all faint and queezy about "rendition" to.<br /><br />And yet, as someone else mentioned, we ARE supposedly known as a country that tortures. Fixing that is the whole reason for the need to lie about what we do, to not admit it, to keep our reputation clean even while our hands are dirty.<br /><br />And the world is willing to go along with us on that self-hatred, willing to make the right noises like we're actually *torturing* people because that's what we've been told it is even when a prisoner is only lied to or threatened.<br /><br />But when our soldiers are caught they're tortured to *death*. When we want to send someone back to their home country again, suddenly there is an important difference between how we treat them and the treatment they'd receive in their home countries.<br /><br />A clean cell, acceptable food, a Koran, medical care. And now lawyers.<br /><br />The world has got to be laughing at us.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57615410055254119052010-01-18T17:00:44.648-06:002010-01-18T17:00:44.648-06:00"...BTW, now only Dem Kool-Aid Drinkers still...<i>"...BTW, now only Dem Kool-Aid Drinkers still believe that the appropriate Dems in Congress were not briefed & didn’t approve."</i><br /><br />It doesn't matter what anyone "believes" about who in Congress was briefed about our criminal torture regime...do you <i>know</i> who was briefed, and to what extent? <br /><br />Also, all those in Congress who were briefed as to what we were actually doing and who approved of it or did nothing to try to impede or halt it are complicit in war crimes. The Dems are scarcely less guilty than the Republicans, especially now that we have a Dem President continuing Bush's terror wars of mass murder abroad.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32874196508754332702010-01-18T16:03:09.205-06:002010-01-18T16:03:09.205-06:00Fred Fred
You now say
Bullshit, ... [I am] just ...Fred Fred<br /><br />You now say<br /><br /><i>Bullshit, ... [I am] just making stuff up [about your points being asked & answered] to fit the situation as [I] think it should be.</i><br /><br />You new to this blog?<br /><br />And you repeat your moral preening, yet oh once more, by again alleging that:<br /><br /><i>[I] have simply ignored the plain language of the law because it is inconvenient.</i><br /><br />Good grief I have answered your "plain language" argument (the argument formerly known as the “Any ‘reasonable reading’ of those definitions argument”) with my “Roses are red as poetry” analogy. Or are you analogy impaired?<br /><br />Your opinions are your opinions & would allow you to preen only when a commenter answers you with an asinine opinion, & further to preen morally only when a commenter answers you with an obviously immoral opinion. <br /><br />It’s easy for you to sit in your chair in front of a keyboard & preen out of ignorance about the efficacy & morality of waterboarding when your silly ass was being protected by the Military/CIA & to try to impose your interpretation of the law, the law, I hasten to remind you, not being a suicide pact. <br /><br />And, BTW, now only Dem Kool-Aid Drinkers still believe that the appropriate Dems in Congress were not briefed & didn’t approve. <br /><br />How’s that for high moral principle? <br /><br />Roses are red<br />Violets are blue<br />Fred Fred & retread<br />Alas, adieu.From Inwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13669931971093194642010-01-18T15:11:45.666-06:002010-01-18T15:11:45.666-06:00All your opinions have been addressed &, I wou...<i>All your opinions have been addressed &, I would say, refuted in many past threads.</i><br /><br />Bullshit, just like John Yoo did in the torture memos and on The Daily Show, instead of arguing the facts or looking to the actual laws and treaties, you are just making stuff up to fit the situation as you think it should be.<br /><br />You, and Yoo, have simply ignored the plain language of the law because it is inconvenient.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46970570017044453342010-01-18T13:39:46.949-06:002010-01-18T13:39:46.949-06:00Fred Fred
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Fred Fre...Fred Fred<br /><br />Roses are red<br />Violets are blue<br />Fred Fred’s still braindead<br />Can’t say anything new.<br /><br />Opinions are not analysis. Even if they are repeated <i>ad nauseam </i>.<br /><br />All your opinions have been addressed &, I would say, refuted in many past threads.<br /><br />As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own law. And you certainly are not entitled to such moral preening in the absence of anything more than your opinions, which are no more valid than any other opinions. <br /><br /><br />fls<br /><br />Practicing law again & criticizing thy betters. You say:<br /><br />"[Bush] gets some lawyer who doesn't know dick about international law."<br /><br />It would seem that you have a small (in your phrase) "binder" of law materials to rely on for your would-be legal opinions as to "international law".From Inwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26537535580153688182010-01-18T13:37:45.597-06:002010-01-18T13:37:45.597-06:00No. You invoke Geneva but then want exceptions mad...<i>No. You invoke Geneva but then want exceptions made for the worst case scenario. You cant have it both ways.</i><br /><br />Where did I make an exception?Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73874469945667349732010-01-18T13:13:23.200-06:002010-01-18T13:13:23.200-06:00Actually, it is a perfect example of the slippery ...<i>Actually, it is a perfect example of the slippery slope torture justification leads you down. If it is okay to torture to find the location of a ticking time bomb, well then we can torture someone to find the location of Osama's favorite deli.</i><br /><br />No. You invoke Geneva but then want exceptions made for the worst case scenario. You cant have it both ways.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30710690136252562862010-01-18T12:58:11.939-06:002010-01-18T12:58:11.939-06:00Of course, we've already seen where Freder'...Of course, we've already seen where Freder's legalisms leave us: under-bomber is all lawyered up and will likely be released on some hyper-technicality of the law. <br /><br />Steyn: "If this were a war, we would question him about who he hooked up with in Yemen, who did he meet with in London, and maybe get a lead on attacks to come. Instead, the authorities, having issued the Knickerbomber a multi-entry visa, having permitted him to board the plane, and having failed to detect his incendiary unwear, now allow him to lawyer up and ensure that we'll never know who he knew in Yemen or anywhere else.<br /><br />This would be a big enough gamble in the best of circumstances. Up against the broader background... it makes disaster inevitable."<br /><br /><br />http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U2MTlmNDQ1ODg0MmQzODI0MGY5ZGJlMGI0NzlkNzA=Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8210304643311253062010-01-18T12:52:30.371-06:002010-01-18T12:52:30.371-06:00Freder: I didn't not the need for an exception...Freder: <i>I didn't not the need for an exception</i><br /><br />Yes you did. <br /><br />Instead of simply responding "no waterboarding, even to save NYC from a nuclear time bomb scenario" you instead qualified it with <i>"so far we have not been presented with a ticking nuclear time bomb scenario."</i><br /><br />ie. even you are willing to leave that door open. Possibly because you realize that sacrificing millions of Americans because of quaint legalisms is madness.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75394376860931007972010-01-18T12:06:50.477-06:002010-01-18T12:06:50.477-06:00Re: 4, I'm pretty sure on that. Factored int...Re: 4, I'm pretty sure on that. Factored into Hitler's calculus on the use of gases (that, and German logistics would have been hard hit by use of gases). If someone wants to chime in they're welcome - I'm a little busy.<br /><br />Also, the war in the Pacific was much more savage in part because Japan was not a signatory to some accords, and violated others they had signed.Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49395369093419049632010-01-18T11:58:26.392-06:002010-01-18T11:58:26.392-06:00So, you have no personal moral or ethical objectio...So, you have no personal moral or ethical objection to any method of interrogation, only on legal grounds? So, if Geneva allowed us to grind KSM's wives and kids into sausage meat and feed it to him, no problemo?<br /><br />TW: catil. Indeed, you catil at a hair.Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28363622034069550442010-01-18T11:37:40.425-06:002010-01-18T11:37:40.425-06:00Gedankenexperimenten:
1) Prohibited under intern...<i>Gedankenexperimenten:</i><br /><br />1) Prohibited under international law and treaty (as is withholding medical treatment as a means of coercing someone to talk).<br /><br />2) That would involve explicitly renouncing our treaty obligations, although I guess if we never actually did what we claimed we were going to, there would be no actual breach.<br /><br />3) No--read the title of the convention again.<br /><br />4) Since when? Show me in the Geneva Conventions it permits a signatory to breach and respond in kind if the other party uses prohibited methods. <br /><br />Besides, the torture convention is binding on the signatory alone. There is no other party to the agreement.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71328070464316219902010-01-18T11:26:53.101-06:002010-01-18T11:26:53.101-06:00Gedankenexperimenten:
1) If we had a viable trut...Gedankenexperimenten:<br /><br />1) If we had a viable truth/mind-control drug which would not cause pain or damage, but would make them talk and/or cooperate, could we use that?<br /><br />2) Would it be OK if we publicized various horrible means of interrogation (or alluded to them nonspecifically), but didn't actually use them?<br /><br />3) Are degrading but non-painful methods, like the use of pig's fat, Koran abuse or menstrual blood, OK to get results?<br /><br />4) Since even Geneva and Hague type accords allow, for instance, use of gas against an enemy who has used gas against you, does AQ's nature means the gloves can come off? For instance, could we make videos showing somebody cutting off KSM's head, like they did with Daniel Pearl et al?Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69322717543730888582010-01-18T11:24:40.462-06:002010-01-18T11:24:40.462-06:00Ah, you note the need for an exception.
I didn...<i>Ah, you note the need for an exception.</i><br /><br />I didn't not the need for an exception. I noted the hypocrisy of you using the worst case scenario (which of course is a pure hypothetical) as justification for routine use of torture.<br /><br />Actually, it is a perfect example of the slippery slope torture justification leads you down. If it is okay to torture to find the location of a ticking time bomb, well then we can torture someone to find the location of Osama's favorite deli. After all, if we find out where he gets lunch, we might be able to catch him.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16114522568332195012010-01-18T11:21:40.805-06:002010-01-18T11:21:40.805-06:00FLS: The hypocrisy of the Bush Administration both...FLS: <i>The hypocrisy of the Bush Administration bothers me the most.</i><br /><br />Laugh line of the thread. A liberal "concerned" about hypocrisy. Ha.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45204080960895571322010-01-18T11:20:19.917-06:002010-01-18T11:20:19.917-06:00why not just tell
Do you know what a "secre...<i>why not just tell </i><br /><br />Do you know what a "secret" is?<br /><br />TW: lumbo. Yes you are.Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79554607036585414602010-01-18T11:16:58.402-06:002010-01-18T11:16:58.402-06:00It all comes out of a conscious decision to throw ...<i>It all comes out of a conscious decision to throw the rules that had served this country well for over sixty years out the window in a moment of panic.</i><br /><br />Yes, yes, and gentlemen don't read other people's mail. BTW I suppose with your reference to "sixty years" you consciously exclude WWII? (Or do you mean we were FF-morality-compliant in WWII but not in WWI? That seems incoherent but is the only alternative I see.)<br /><br />I'm looking for that Keynes quote...ah yes: <i>When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? </i><br /><br />This is not a war you can win by taking Berlin or Tokyo. <br /><br />...Although, if by citing WWII as your standard, you mean that we can use nuclear weapons if we see fit, I might be willing to make that trade. That, and our Marines can cut the gold teeth out of AQ skulls.Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.com