lawyers who fear evidence backing the cases against many of the approximately 250 detainees wouldn't hold up in a conventional court proceeding.

Damm that rule of law.

they still be torturing subby.

its funny, my wife keeps repeating that they are going to close Guantanamo. I keep asking her the faith of those prison boats we have floating around in international waters..

... worry among Justice Department lawyers who fear evidence backing the cases against many of the approximately 250 detainees wouldn't hold up in a conventional court proceeding.

Then maybe you should have thought about BEFORE you tainted the chain of evidence...

Perhaps they might be less worried about how their evidence would hold up, and the methods for gathering it, if they'd paid attention to the rule of law in the first place, as opposed to hoping that the Administration would just reset the goal posts retroactively.

This is the problem. You don't fit the evidence to the case. You fit the case to the evidence. Sort of like you don't fit the facts according to the policy chosen, but choose the policy according to the facts.

That the Administration repeatedly made this mistake to put ideology and policy before anything remotely looking like evidence or fact, and cherry picked both to fit the path they had already chosen, it pretty much puts the onus on the Administration for the success or failure of these cases.

You fark it up, you can't just say, "Well, we know that this will never fly in court, so let's just forget about trials..."

Well, you can, but that doesn't mean that it's right or legal, or even competent.

Why does the law hate America ?

Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.

Good.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.

"Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?"

Word that Mr. Obama plans to issue an executive order to close the prison has caused worry among Justice Department lawyers who fear evidence backing the cases against many of the approximately 250 detainees wouldn't hold up in a conventional court proceeding.

The Justice Department does not have the resources to take 250 terrorism cases to trial. The system depends on 95% of defendants pleading guilty.

ZAZ: Word that Mr. Obama plans to issue an executive order to close the prison has caused worry among Justice Department lawyers who fear evidence backing the cases against many of the approximately 250 detainees wouldn't hold up in a conventional court proceeding.

The Justice Department does not have the resources to take 250 terrorism cases to trial. The system depends on 95% of defendants pleading guilty.

If we're serious about terrorism, then we'd hire more people to handle the cases.

Torture is a crime and must be prosecuted, because America was founded on rule of law, not rule of tyrants or making exceptions to rule of law when it became expedient. The Bush Justice Department must be held accountable for its actions, all the way up to Cheney and Bush themselves. The rampant disregard for the law makes America weaker in the eyes of the world. To say nothing of how unjust the 250 gitmo prisoners has been treated, none of them having actually been charged, and quite a few of them having been held on extremely flimsy evidence (or just sold off by a tribal warlord at the time)

I absolutely do not understand the logic behind declaring waterboard to be torture, which is illegal, but then not prosecuting those who authorized it. What's the point? Yes, it means it won't happen from now on but how can you justify future actions if there's no accountability for the past?

hubiestubert...

"Perhaps they might be less worried about how their evidence would hold up, and the methods for gathering it, if they'd paid attention to the rule of law in the first place, as opposed to hoping that the Administration would just reset the goal posts retroactively.

This is the problem. You don't fit the evidence to the case. You fit the case to the evidence. Sort of like you don't fit the facts according to the policy chosen, but choose the policy according to the facts.

That the Administration repeatedly made this mistake to put ideology and policy before anything remotely looking like evidence or fact, and cherry picked both to fit the path they had already chosen, it pretty much puts the onus on the Administration for the success or failure of these cases.

You fark it up, you can't just say, "Well, we know that this will never fly in court, so let's just forget about trials...""

Well, you can, but that doesn't mean that it's right or legal, or even competent.

-i would follow you as king.

The USA is six percent of the worlds population. It would be really in our best interest if we got back to being the good guy again. The terrorists won the minute we stooped to their level and committed criminal acts in the name of justice.

Bush and Cheney and all beneath them must be held accountable, and rule of law must be restored.

Generation_D: The USA is six percent of the worlds population.

We're actually less than 5%.

It makes me somewhat happy that they're worried...

what an embarrassing chapter for America.

I absolutely do not understand the logic behind declaring waterboard to be torture, which is illegal, but then not prosecuting those who authorized it.

Imagine you have a tax question and you write a letter to the IRS asking if such-and-such is deductible as a business expense. If the IRS says "yes" they can't prosecute you for tax fraud if they change their minds later and decide you shouldn't have claimed the deduction.

There's a similar principle at work here. Justice Department officials determined that certain conduct was not illegal and made that the official position of the United States government. Other people relied on that statement. That same agency may not say "Ha! Tricked you! You're going to jail!" The most they can say is "we changed our minds, stop doing that."

ZAZ: Imagine you have a tax question and you write a letter to the IRS asking if such-and-such is deductible as a business expense. If the IRS says "yes" they can't prosecute you for tax fraud if they change their minds later and decide you shouldn't have claimed the deduction.

Yes they can if you are in a position to know better and the advice given to you was reckless. If I ask a cop if I'm allowed to murder someone and they say yes, we are both guilty (though of different crimes).

ZAZ: I absolutely do not understand the logic behind declaring waterboard to be torture, which is illegal, but then not prosecuting those who authorized it.

Imagine you have a tax question and you write a letter to the IRS asking if such-and-such is deductible as a business expense. If the IRS says "yes" they can't prosecute you for tax fraud if they change their minds later and decide you shouldn't have claimed the deduction.

There's a similar principle at work here. Justice Department officials determined that certain conduct was not illegal and made that the official position of the United States government. Other people relied on that statement. That same agency may not say "Ha! Tricked you! You're going to jail!" The most they can say is "we changed our minds, stop doing that."

Also, we have never accepted this as a defense for any other war crime.

Also, we have never accepted this as a defense for any other war crime.

U.S. prosecutors can not try people for acts which those prosecutors declared to be legal, acting in their official capacity as law enforcement officials.

If Zimbabwe wants to try Staff Sergeant Smith for war crimes even though Ashcroft told Smith it was OK, that's a whole different story. International war crimes trials are political exercises. They can have whatever procedure and rights the prosecutors want to allow.

There are agents who will not leave the United States because they fear being charged under other countries' torture or war crimes laws. (I forget the source -- it was some British author being interviewed on NPR about his book earlier this month.)

ZAZ: U.S. prosecutors can not try people for acts which those prosecutors declared to be legal, acting in their official capacity as law enforcement officials.

We did it all the time post WW-II. That's what the whole World Court is for, an institution we support.

ZAZ: If Zimbabwe wants to try Staff Sergeant Smith for war crimes even though Ashcroft told Smith it was OK, that's a whole different story.

Why is it different?

ZAZ: International war crimes trials are political exercises. They can have whatever procedure and rights the prosecutors want to allow.

And its against American law to violate a treaty.

ZAZ: There are agents who will not leave the United States because they fear being charged under other countries' torture or war crimes laws. (I forget the source -- it was some British author being interviewed on NPR about his book earlier this month.)

And this administration will join them if we don't prosecute ourselves.

That's what the whole World Court is for, an institution we support.

Our support for such institutions is with reservations. We do not grant a foreign court or legal system supremacy over our own.

Why is it different?

Because our internal affairs are governed by our constitution, which says the government has to give fair notice in advance of what constitutes a crime. International relations are governed by politics.

And its against American law to violate a treaty.

It's not a crime to violate a treaty, but it's also not important whether the legal principle at stake comes from a treaty or a statute. If the Attorney General tells you in writing that doing X is legal then the next guy to hold the post can't order you prosecuted for doing X.

I should add a more general comment.

Our system assumes good faith on the part of high officials. To use a different example, remember the controversy the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. A clerk made a mistake and there was some question about whether the law was properly passed. The opposition to the law said that the House and Senate voted on different versions and so the law was never passed. Courts, following precedent, deferred to the leaders of Congress who said the law was valid. Supreme Court precedent says that even if the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House commit outright fraud in certifying that a law was properly passed, the law stands.

My point here is, the possibility that somebody could get away with doing something wrong does not mean that the courts have the power to intervene.

fark this lapdog piece of shiat. He knows it's torture but won't say so because it means his master's cronies might have to answer for it. He should be tried as an accomplice.

Oh comeon, he hasn't even taken office yet. Give him a couple of weeks and he'll be torturin and liein like an old pro.

So Nixon was right when he said that it's not illegal when the President does it?

ZAZ: There's a similar principle at work here. Justice Department officials determined that certain conduct was not illegal and made that the official position of the United States government. Other people relied on that statement. That same agency may not say "Ha! Tricked you! You're going to jail!" The most they can say is "we changed our minds, stop doing that."

The Nuremberg trials made "I was just following orders!" an illegitimate excuse for commiting criminal acts of this sort. If the ones responsible for the torture get jailed and made an example of what happens when you break the law to uphold it, I'll be very, very happy.

ZAZ: There are agents who will not leave the United States because they fear being charged under other countries' torture or war crimes laws.

Damn right, and when the whole sorry debacle of the Bush torture saga is over, there will be plenty more.

Don't even think of coming to any EU country, since lawyers in any one of the 29 countries can gat an arrest warrant issued if you so much as stop over in a plane in any of the 29.

ZAZ: Because our internal affairs are governed by our constitution, which says the government has to give fair notice in advance of what constitutes a crime.

I'd say that torture being farking illegal for who knows how many decades qualifies as fair notice. That these people chose to ignore it because they were given a thumbs up from their boss does not mean they are freed from the fact or responsibility that they did break the law.

ZAZ: Also, we have never accepted this as a defense for any other war crime.

U.S. prosecutors can not try people for acts which those prosecutors declared to be legal, acting in their official capacity as law enforcement officials.

If Zimbabwe wants to try Staff Sergeant Smith for war crimes even though Ashcroft told Smith it was OK, that's a whole different story. International war crimes trials are political exercises. They can have whatever procedure and rights the prosecutors want to allow.

There are agents who will not leave the United States because they fear being charged under other countries' torture or war crimes laws. (I forget the source -- it was some British author being interviewed on NPR about his book earlier this month.)


Nuremburg Trials.

"I was only following orders" and "The ReichsMarshall assured me that torture was legal" are not valid defenses in court.

ZAZ:

It's not a crime to violate a treaty, but it's also not important whether the legal principle at stake comes from a treaty or a statute. If the Attorney General tells you in writing that doing X is legal then the next guy to hold the post can't order you prosecuted for doing X.


I understand that that is what you *want* to be true.

The precedents established by the Nuremburg trials say that certain orders and actions are inherantly illegal, and *cannot* be lawfully ordered, and *cannot* be lawfully obeyed.

The Unifom Code of Military Justice is also quite clear on the penalties for both giving unlawfull orders, and the penalties for obeying unlawfull orders.

So, that is covered by both Civil and Military law.

ZAZ: It's not a crime to violate a treaty, but it's also not important whether the legal principle at stake comes from a treaty or a statute. If the Attorney General tells you in writing that doing X is legal then the next guy to hold the post can't order you prosecuted for doing X.

It isn't?

From the Constitution, you may have heard of it:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seems pretty clear to me we are all bound to treaties made. Your other argument that because the Bush justice department signed off on things makes them de-facto legal at that time is laughable. This is the same defense as Nixon, "If the president does it, its not illegal". The Justice Department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, not the Judicial branch. They do not decide the law and a new prosecutor can take up the case or not if they wish. Do you think you'd get very far in the courts if the local DA decided not to charge you, but the new DA a few months later does?

It sounds to me like the outgoing AG may be worried about something. I wonder what it could be?

jcooli09: I wonder what it could be?

Jailtime if there is any justice in the world. What these people did was beyond criminal, and that there are people who still try to defend it in one form or another seems to justify my frustration with humanity.

I think our system of prosecuting torturers should be pretty simple: Treat it like organized crime. Roll over on the guy above you, reveal who gave you those orders and prove it, or go to jail.

i don't understand what the big deal is. I thought the Bushies said that we don't torture...

coco ebert: I absolutely do not understand the logic behind declaring waterboard to be torture, which is illegal, but then not prosecuting those who authorized it. What's the point? Yes, it means it won't happen from now on but how can you justify future actions if there's no accountability for the past?

You couldn't prosecute the people who did it without prosecuting the people who authorized it - Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney. If you did that, the issue would erupt into a partisan political firestorm that wouldn't do anyone any good, and completely divide the country at the worst possible time.

But that doesn't mean you can't drag all the facts out into the light of day and let them all go down in history as shiatheads.

DamnYankees: ZAZ: U.S. prosecutors can not try people for acts which those prosecutors declared to be legal, acting in their official capacity as law enforcement officials.

We did it all the time post WW-II. That's what the whole World Court is for, an institution we support.

ZAZ: If Zimbabwe wants to try Staff Sergeant Smith for war crimes even though Ashcroft told Smith it was OK, that's a whole different story.

Why is it different?

ZAZ: International war crimes trials are political exercises. They can have whatever procedure and rights the prosecutors want to allow.

And its against American law to violate a treaty.

ZAZ: There are agents who will not leave the United States because they fear being charged under other countries' torture or war crimes laws. (I forget the source -- it was some British author being interviewed on NPR about his book earlier this month.)

And this administration will join them if we don't prosecute ourselves.

Like AMerica gives a shiat about treaties.

ghare:

Like AMerica gives a shiat about treaties.

Perhaps we will next week.

Murkanen: jcooli09: I wonder what it could be?

Jailtime if there is any justice in the world. What these people did was beyond criminal, and that there are people who still try to defend it in one form or another seems to justify my frustration with humanity.

Nah, the only ones who ever pay any sort of price for this sort of thing are the low level white trash grunts. the big guys calling the shots generally walk away from it all. usually with big paychecks too.

RemyDuron: I think our system of prosecuting torturers should be pretty simple: Treat it like organized crime. Roll over on the guy above you, reveal who gave you those orders and prove it, or go to jail.


Not exactly.

Roll over on the guy above you and get only 10 years.

If you *don't* roll over on the guy above you, then you get 50 years.

And... if your name is Alberto Gonzalez, then you are sentenced to live under the same, exact conditions of "non torture" that you authorized for others.... and you'd be sent to a normal prison the moment that you signed the paperwork acknowledging that the conditions you authorized *are* torture.

Heh heh.... and if he could withstand the "non torture" for 5 years without signing the papers, then he would be released with no charges. Just like the other people he authorized the "non torture" for.

Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

General Zang: Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

I have a standing offer to anyone defending the practice of waterboarding US prisoners - let me waterboard you for 2 hours (and video tape it for posterity). Then after we're done, we'll discuss if it felt like torture at that point, we'll review the footage and we'll post it all up on youtube for public discussion and review. I'll cover any medical expenses and have a medical team standing by for the duration of the waterboarding session.

nobody ever takes me up on my offer though.

Weaver95: General Zang: Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

I have a standing offer to anyone defending the practice of waterboarding US prisoners - let me waterboard you for 2 hours (and video tape it for posterity). Then after we're done, we'll discuss if it felt like torture at that point, we'll review the footage and we'll post it all up on youtube for public discussion and review. I'll cover any medical expenses and have a medical team standing by for the duration of the waterboarding session.

nobody ever takes me up on my offer though.

To be fair, have you gone through the School of the Americas to be properly trained? It is a delicate art, after all.

hubiestubert:

To be fair, have you gone through the School of the Americas to be properly trained? It is a delicate art, after all.



Indeed...

Weaver95: General Zang: Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

I have a standing offer to anyone defending the practice of waterboarding US prisoners - let me waterboard you for 2 hours (and video tape it for posterity). Then after we're done, we'll discuss if it felt like torture at that point, we'll review the footage and we'll post it all up on youtube for public discussion and review. I'll cover any medical expenses and have a medical team standing by for the duration of the waterboarding session.

nobody ever takes me up on my offer though.


From what I hear, the person who has lasted the longest undr waterboarding was Shiek something-or-other, and he lasted a full 45 seconds, which apparently impressed everyone, as it was triple the usual time it took to break someone.

Though, I suspect, that if someone trained via hypnosis, and with zen-like disasociation methods, that you might even be eventually to make it maybe 5 or 10 minutes.

2 hours... well... that seems somewhat long.

As for Alberto Gonzalaz, that guy pissed me off so damn much with his bullshiat "I don't recall" nonsense, that if I had the honor of interrogating him, I'd simply use the "open hand slaps" and "shaking" techniques that he authorized for use.

Alberto Gonzalez: "Um.. I don't recall".

*slap*

Zang: "How about you answer the question."

Alberto Gonzalez: "Um... I don't recall the answer."

*slap*

****15 hours later****

Alberto Gonzalez: "Ok, I admit it. Slapping *is* torture. I'll admit that I remember everything. Just stop hitting me."

Zang: "Not so fast pal. You're scheduled for five years of this."

*slap* *slap*

But, unfortunately, this scenario wouldn't ever happen. Mainly, because I'm a decent person, with morals and ethics, and a respect for the law... unlike the pieces of shiat that leave office on Tuesday.

Hmmm maybe the outgoing AG would enjoy a vacation in Gitmo

DamnYankees: Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.

Good.

THIS

General Zang: Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

A week? He wouldn't last 30 seconds.

General Zang: RemyDuron: I think our system of prosecuting torturers should be pretty simple: Treat it like organized crime. Roll over on the guy above you, reveal who gave you those orders and prove it, or go to jail.


Not exactly.

Roll over on the guy above you and get only 10 years.

If you *don't* roll over on the guy above you, then you get 50 years.

And... if your name is Alberto Gonzalez, then you are sentenced to live under the same, exact conditions of "non torture" that you authorized for others.... and you'd be sent to a normal prison the moment that you signed the paperwork acknowledging that the conditions you authorized *are* torture.

Heh heh.... and if he could withstand the "non torture" for 5 years without signing the papers, then he would be released with no charges. Just like the other people he authorized the "non torture" for.

Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

The problem with that is Alberto Gonzalez would never be able to recall any of the things done to him immediately afterwords. He'd be uncrackable.

attackingpencil: General Zang: Heck... we can all take bets on how long it'd take for Alberto Gonzalez to crack. I'm guessing less than a week.

A week? He wouldn't last 30 seconds.

I meant a week, *without* using waterboarding... and just using the less-controvrsial methods of torture.

Leaving someone naked in a 50 degree concrete cell, handcuffed in a standing position, with heavy metal music blaring into the room at right-next-to-the-stage-at-a-concert volume levels should do the trick.

48 hours to 72 hours of that, and a person's brain would start triggering halucinations from the sleep deprivation... and they'd also probably be really close to hypohermia. And, of course, they'd be in excruciating and constant pain from the muscle spasms triggered by being in the same position that long.

All perfectly legal, acording to our last 3 Attorney Generals.

So... once they'd signed the papers admitting that the techniques ammounted to torture.... just for shiats and giggles, you should probably also have them sign confessions admitting to the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, the sinking of the Lusitania, and involvement in a Masonic conspiracy to conquer Antarctica.

Well, if you were the sort of asshole who could even bring himself to do that sort of thing.... ...like the last three Attorney Generals.

General Zang: Leaving someone naked in a 50 degree concrete cell, handcuffed in a standing position, with heavy metal music blaring into the room at right-next-to-the-stage-at-a-concert volume levels should do the trick.

hmm....add in a computer desk and a WoW account and that pretty much describes a typical weekend for me....