Why Eric Holder's Decision To Try TERRORISTS In NYC Is Absolutely CORRECT!
Jesus'sPedoBoy
The Washington Post
Monday, November 23, 2009
"Putting American justice on trial"
THIRTY YEARS AGO, I was a prosecutor in a terrorism trial in the
United States, prosecuting agents of the Chilean secret police who
murdered former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his assistant
Ronni Moffitt, blowing up the car they were riding in at Sheridan
Circle in the heart of Embassy Row in 1976.
During a recess in the trial, I was in the hallway outside the heavily
guarded courtroom, and I heard one spectator remark, "Ya know, those
terrorists don't look so scary in a big, marbled courtroom surrounded
by U.S. marshals!" A simple observation that said much.
Terrorists' primary weapon is fear. Eric Holder knows this, and thanks
to his correct decision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his acolytes will
be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by American justice
for all to see, observed in court by Americans they cannot defeat in a
city whose spirit they could not put down. This was a courageous
decision by the attorney general.
E. Lawrence Barcella Jr.
Washington, D.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112201612.html
climber
I was two blocks away at an outdoor cafe when the bomb detonated.
Two die.
But totally minor league stuff compared to the muslim situation.
Don't get me wrong, I am pleased that the trial will be held
in NYC. Let the games begin.
Climber
Jerry Okamura
"Jesus'sPedoBoy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bee06ab8-64f4-4b3e...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Deadrat
news:cGFOm.37131$We2....@newsfe09.iad:
> Will it still be the right decision, if they are not found guilty?
It will still have been the right decision; it'll just a verdict you
don't like. But sometimes that happens when you go with the rule of law.
Neolibertarian
<bee06ab8-64f4-4b3e...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"Jesus'sPedoBoy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Letter To The Editor
> The Washington Post
> Monday, November 23, 2009
>
>
> "Putting American justice on trial"
>
>
> THIRTY YEARS AGO, I was a prosecutor in a terrorism trial in the
> United States, prosecuting agents of the Chilean secret police who
> murdered former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his assistant
> Ronni Moffitt, blowing up the car they were riding in at Sheridan
> Circle in the heart of Embassy Row in 1976.
>
> During a recess in the trial, I was in the hallway outside the heavily
> guarded courtroom, and I heard one spectator remark, "Ya know, those
> terrorists don't look so scary in a big, marbled courtroom surrounded
> by U.S. marshals!" A simple observation that said much.
>
> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear. Eric Holder knows this, and thanks
> to his correct decision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his acolytes will
> be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by American justice
> for all to see, observed in court by Americans they cannot defeat in a
> city whose spirit they could not put down. This was a courageous
> decision by the attorney general.
Perhaps it was courageous, and perhaps the 9/11 attacks were courageous,
as well.
Courage = courage. Courage doesn't necessarily equal "right."
The Attorney General is pandering. His actions, along with the Supreme
Court, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and assorted radicals,
socialists and anarchists are attempting to permanently rupture
America's ability to defend herself.
We assume, this is largely because they can't justify their own
country's moral right to exist. This is a safer assumption than you
might guess.
Since August of 1945, it's been an irrational proposition for the
Congress of the United States to declare war. There are no nations on
earth, nor any combinations of nations which might withstand such a
declaration. There are credible studies which confirm that mankind,
himself, would not survive a Congressional Declaration. As it stands,
even if individual officials aren't exactly sure this is true, none have
yet wanted to test the hypothesis.
The attempt to preclude any future declarations of war by the United
States was purposely nested in Article 53 of the UN Charter. This
article supersedes the Constitutional War powers of Congress--which is
why it has been ignored by every President except Truman and GHW Bush.
As a result of all this, the US has accepted that there are, as there
MUST be, varying degrees of war. These degrees of war are necessary to
prevent a confluence of events that might lead to the necessity for a
Congressional Declaration--and most rational people understand that
should such a necessity ever again arise, mankind will not be able to
afford the unimaginable cost.
The reason the Attorney General is pandering is because he is painfully
aware that the former President had been granted war powers by Congress
to conduct this war. The Administration conducted this war to the best
of its abilities, and justified all of its actions in accordance with
legal precedence and the Constitution of the United States--and, as an
aside, with the full knowledge and both tacit and explicit approval of
those political opponents who now decry the administration's actions.
Holder is painfully aware that this war is against nebulous, shadowy
organizations no one will ever fully understand (much like the Costa
Nostra and related organizations in the US). He knows that some of these
organizations have been ignored in favor of taking on a few of them
singly.
He knows that mistakes were made in the detaining of some individuals,
and that some fairly innocent bystanders had been incorrectly detained
and defined as unlawful enemy combatants. He knows that some detainees
had confessions wrested from them under harsh interrogations. He knows
that some of these interrogations yielded actionable intelligence that
saved America from some deadly attacks, and led to the destruction and
dispersal of some international terrorist-support organizations. He
knows, on the other hand, that some of these interrogations yielded
nothing of the kind.
He also knows that the US's War on Terrorism has been extraordinarily
successful. While threats remain, the basic issues of the war have been
decisively addressed, and threats to the security of the United States
are lower than they were in the 1990's when the Islamic Jihadi networks
were operating unchecked throughout the world.
He's not certain that the US acted correctly, at all. But he's certain
that from a pragmatic standpoint, from a strictly results point of view,
the war has worked better than anyone anticipated.
Holder thinks that, since terrorism is now less of a threat, we can
safely treat it as a crime, and the Islamic Jihadis can be treated as
criminals.
I can't imagine an any more ignorant or hypocritical position. But then,
I've never run across any more hypocritical or blind human beings in my
life than any of the government lawyers and prosecutors I've run across
IRL or read about in the news.
Holder, far from being an exception, is an avatar for their hypocrisy.
Jihadis aren't criminals. They are soldiers. Those who conduct
operations against unarmed civilian non-combatants are guilty of war
crimes, of course. But they are not civilian criminals. They have no
business in a civilian court of law in the United States.
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
� You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
� Beginning with yourself.
� And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
Deadrat
news:3034d$4b0b3d08$18f55223$21...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article
> <bee06ab8-64f4-4b3e...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jesus'sPedoBoy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Letter To The Editor
>> The Washington Post
>> Monday, November 23, 2009
>>
>>
>> "Putting American justice on trial"
>>
>>
>> THIRTY YEARS AGO, I was a prosecutor in a terrorism trial in the
>> United States, prosecuting agents of the Chilean secret police who
>> murdered former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his assistant
>> Ronni Moffitt, blowing up the car they were riding in at Sheridan
>> Circle in the heart of Embassy Row in 1976.
>>
>> During a recess in the trial, I was in the hallway outside the
>> heavily guarded courtroom, and I heard one spectator remark, "Ya
>> know, those terrorists don't look so scary in a big, marbled
>> courtroom surrounded by U.S. marshals!" A simple observation that
>> said much.
>>
>> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear. Eric Holder knows this, and
>> thanks to his correct decision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
>> acolytes will be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by
>> American justice for all to see, observed in court by Americans they
>> cannot defeat in a city whose spirit they could not put down. This
>> was a courageous decision by the attorney general.
>
> Perhaps it was courageous,
Courageous? It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold the rule
of law? Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales,
maybe.
> and perhaps the 9/11 attacks were courageous, as well.
>
> Courage = courage. Courage doesn't necessarily equal "right."
>
> The Attorney General is pandering.
To whom?
> His actions, along with the Supreme
> Court, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and assorted radicals,
> socialists and anarchists are attempting to permanently rupture
> America's ability to defend herself.
Please detail how following the principles of our founders will restict
our ability to defend ourselves. Be detailed. Show your work. Later on
in your little screed you will conclude how successful our war on terror
has been. Apparently unimpeded by the previous and successful
prosecution of terrorists in civil courts.
> We assume,
Ah, you're about to assume something. Is that because you have no
evidence?
> this is largely because they can't justify their own
> country's moral right to exist. This is a safer assumption than you
> might guess.
Ah, you're about to justify your assumption.
<snip/>
> The reason the Attorney General is pandering is because he is
> painfully aware that the former President had been granted war powers
> by Congress to conduct this war.
So what?
> The Administration conducted this war to the best of its abilities,
Sadly enough, this is true. Just they way it conducted the rest of its
responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its memebers'
abilities.
> and justified all of its actions in
> accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the United
> States
Hardly. They tortured people, which is against US law and US treaty
obligations. They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
Supreme Court ruled was illegal. They set up military tribunals to try
Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were illegal.
And lying us into war and then lying about it? At least there's
precedent for that.
> --and, as an aside, with the full knowledge and both tacit and
> explicit approval of those political opponents who now decry the
> administration's actions.
The people who now decry the actions of the WPE have reason to be ashamed
of themselves. They knew the WPE and his advisors were liars, they knew
the case they were making for war was at the least shaky, and they didn't
stand up against that war. In other words, they were cowards, too scared
for their political futures to do the right thing.
But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing illegal acts.
> Holder is painfully aware that this war is
> against nebulous, shadowy organizations no one will ever fully
> understand (much like the Costa Nostra and related organizations in
> the US). He knows that some of these organizations have been ignored
> in favor of taking on a few of them singly.
I understand that you're scared. These organizations are scary. But
suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders left us.
> He knows that mistakes were made in the detaining of some individuals,
> and that some fairly innocent bystanders had been incorrectly detained
> and defined as unlawful enemy combatants.
He knows some were killed.
> He knows that some detainees
> had confessions wrested from them under harsh interrogations.
Let's call it like it is. He knows some detainees were tortured, using
methods that led to us indict and convict Japanese officers of war crimes
after World War II.
> He knows
> that some of these interrogations yielded actionable intelligence that
> saved America from some deadly attacks,
He may know this. But you don't. In fact, some military interrogators
have stated the opposite. KSM was waterboarded to get him to attest to
the nonexistent link between Iraq and 9/11. In other words, the
administration used torture to try to justify the lies they told to get
us into war.
> and led to the destruction and
> dispersal of some international terrorist-support organizations. He
> knows, on the other hand, that some of these interrogations yielded
> nothing of the kind.
He may, in fact, know that *none* of these interrogations yieled anything
useful. Professionals know that people will say anything to get the pain
to stop.
> He also knows that the US's War on Terrorism has been extraordinarily
> successful. While threats remain, the basic issues of the war have
> been decisively addressed, and threats to the security of the United
> States are lower than they were in the 1990's when the Islamic Jihadi
> networks were operating unchecked throughout the world.
The US War on Terrorism has been a disaster. It's main achievement, the
war in Iraq with the attendant scandals, have been the best recruiting
program for terrorists. And had the worst consequences for relations
with our allies, real and nominal.
> He's not certain that the US acted correctly, at all.
In fact, he knows that his predecessors operated outside the law, which
is to say "not ... correctly," since he's the AG.
> But he's certain
> that from a pragmatic standpoint, from a strictly results point of
> view, the war has worked better than anyone anticipated.
The war has been pretty much an unmitigated strategic disaster. A loss
in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan, the estrangement of our allies, the
strengthening of our enemies.
> Holder thinks that, since terrorism is now less of a threat, we can
> safely treat it as a crime, and the Islamic Jihadis can be treated as
> criminals.
Please stop telling us what Holder thinks. Given the absurdity of your
own thought processes, it just makes you look silly.
And some of the Jihadis are criminals.
>
> I can't imagine an any more ignorant or hypocritical position.
As irony meters explode everywhere.
> But
> then, I've never run across any more hypocritical or blind human
> beings in my life than any of the government lawyers and prosecutors
> I've run across IRL or read about in the news.
>
> Holder, far from being an exception, is an avatar for their hypocrisy.
>
> Jihadis aren't criminals. They are soldiers.
Nothing prevents them from being both. The Geneva Convention just does
not allow their status as soldiers to be criminalized.
> Those who conduct
> operations against unarmed civilian non-combatants are guilty of war
> crimes, of course. But they are not civilian criminals. They have no
> business in a civilian court of law in the United States.
Those who conduct operations against unarmed civilians are criminals.
And perhaps we should stop elevating them to level of honorable
combatants.
NeoLibertarian
>
> >> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear.EricHolderknows this, and
> >> thanks to his correctdecision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
> >> acolytes will be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by
> >> American justice for all to see, observed in court by Americans they
> >> cannot defeat in a city whose spirit they could not put down. This
> >> was a courageousdecisionby the attorney general.
>
> > Perhaps it was courageous,
>
> Courageous? It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold the rule
> of law? Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales,
> maybe.
You're demonstrating you have no history, of course. Pubic schools?
This can be overcome, but I'm here to tell you, it ain't easy.
With no history, you have no context. At least in certain cases, this
lack of context was created for you on purpose.
On principle alone, you shouldn't allow that to continue.
>
> > and perhaps the 9/11 attacks were courageous, as well.
>
> > Courage = courage. Courage doesn't necessarily equal "right."
>
> > The Attorney General is pandering.
>
> To whom?
To voting blocks.
>
> > His actions, along with the Supreme
> > Court, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and assorted radicals,
> > socialists and anarchists are attempting to permanently rupture
> > America's ability to defend herself.
>
> Please detail how following the principles of our founders will restict
> our ability to defend ourselves. Be detailed. Show your work. Later on
> in your little screed you will conclude how successful our war on terror
> has been. Apparently unimpeded by the previous and successful
> prosecution of terrorists in civil courts.
All in due time and space. This is Usenet, after all. Much of what
you're asking for follows.
>
> > We assume,
>
> Ah, you're about to assume something. Is that because you have no
> evidence?
No, I can assure you that's not it.
>
> > this is largely because they can't justify their own
> > country's moral right to exist. This is a safer assumption than you
> > might guess.
>
> Ah, you're about to justify your assumption.
Good guess.
>
> <snip/>
>
> > The reason the Attorney General is pandering is because he is
> > painfully aware that the former President had been granted war powers
> > by Congress to conduct this war.
>
> So what?
Congressionally granted war powers change the argument on a
fundamental level, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > The Administration conducted this war to the best of its abilities,
>
> Sadly enough, this is true. Just they way it conducted the rest of its
> responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its memebers'
> abilities.
No administration could or has done much better--nor have
administrations done much better in war or other emergencies in the
past.
These bring out the worst and the best in all of us, I'm afraid. Even
for the sterling critics of the War on Terror.
>
> > and justified all of its actions in
> > accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the United
> > States
>
> Hardly. They tortured people, which is against US law and US treaty
> obligations.
First of all, no torture occurred. It fails all four points of the
definition. It's true that waterboarding comes close to threatening a
subject with imminent death. But only close to the threshold. It
certainly doesn't cross it...on purpose.
Second, you can't cite relevant US case law which applies to unlawful
enemy combatants. On the other paw, the Eisentrager decision is rather
clear in this regard--it's certainly legal for the US military to
detain unlawful enemy combatants overseas without legal protections or
permitting recourse.
Third, unlawful enemy combatants are purposely not included within the
definitions of the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not
protected. Loosely organized terrorists and anarchists operating
clandestinely across international borders cannot be afforded
protections by any society interested in its own survival.
These unasked for, unearned and undeserved protections especially must
not be granted to these organizations' members who've have proved
competent enough to murder 3,000 people in a single morning.
Bojinka could have succeeded in killing over 5,000. Had the attacks on
Manhattan and New York occurred 30 minutes later, or had the New York
City Emergency Services not revamped their response capabilities as a
result of the 1993 attack, their totals could have been in the tens of
thousands. If it weren't for the personal courage and indomitable
spirit of the members of the NYCES, the totals could have been as much
as 15,000, anyway.
The definition of credible threat.
> They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
> Supreme Court ruled was illegal. They set up military tribunals to try
> Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were illegal.
>
> And lying us into war and then lying about it? At least there's
> precedent for that.
No one lied you into war, Princess.
Why on earth would you believe you were?
>
> > --and, as an aside, with the full knowledge and both tacit and
> > explicit approval of those political opponents who now decry the
> > administration's actions.
>
> The people who now decry the actions of the WPE have reason to be ashamed
> of themselves. They knew the WPE and his advisors were liars, they knew
> the case they were making for war was at the least shaky, and they didn't
> stand up against that war.
You must be referring to OIF. The case for OEF has rarely been
doubted, even by virulent anti-Americans (though I myself have long
been convinced OEF was a horrible mistake).
The case for OIF wasn't shaky in the least. The necessity for an
invasion of Iraq was made manifest by the 9/11 Attacks. How could it
be any more clear?
Again, you don't have any history, facts or context. So, naturally
enough, you believe you were lied into the war. Perhaps because of
something you thought you heard?
> In other words, they were cowards, too scared
> for their political futures to do the right thing.
They demonstrably did the right thing according to the situation and
the information available to them. At least in the cases which you
think you're referring.
>
> But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing illegal acts.
They weren't.
>
> >Holderis painfully aware that this war is
> > against nebulous, shadowy organizations no one will ever fully
> > understand (much like the Costa Nostra and related organizations in
> > the US). He knows that some of these organizations have been ignored
> > in favor of taking on a few of them singly.
>
> I understand that you're scared.
Kid, I'm not scared of the terrorists.
The fact of the matter is, a terrorist can only terrorize those who
can't fight back.
> These organizations are scary. But
> suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders left us.
The organizations aren't scary; they're dangerous. There's a
difference.
As to the founders, if you're going to continue to evoke them, you
should be able to cite them. You obviously have some evidence in mind
that would show how, where and why their principles for this nation's
laws were violated in the conduct of the War on Terror.
Please present it now, or retract your silly, unspecified indictments.
For instance, it might interest you to learn that Thomas Jefferson was
the first US President to illegally commence a war against Islamic
Terrorists.
>
> > He knows that mistakes were made in the detaining of some individuals,
> > and that some fairly innocent bystanders had been incorrectly detained
> > and defined as unlawful enemy combatants.
>
> He knows some were killed.
Oops.
>
> > He knows that some detainees
> > had confessions wrested from them under harsh interrogations.
>
> Let's call it like it is. He knows some detainees were tortured, using
> methods that led to us indict and convict Japanese officers of war crimes
> after World War II.
That's just silly.
Your arguments won't work here at Usenet, because you can't assume we
have no context. Some of us do.
Waterboarding isn't torture according to relevant legal definitions.
If you hold a different definition, that's your problem, but it's not
mine. It's only my problem when it becomes law.
It's illegal for anyone to use waterboarding or other harsh
interrogation techniques against soldiers captured in uniform, or
against civilians. Under all circumstances.
The famous "only give them your name, rank and serial number," adage
is based on the Conventions.
There are situational differences involved. And differences are
crucial.
Besides, the Japanese in question weren't just waterboarding. You're
conflating--or you're asserting a fallacy of the biased sample.
>
> > He knows
> > that some of these interrogations yielded actionable intelligence that
> > saved America from some deadly attacks,
>
> He may know this. But you don't.
Nor do you.
Well, /he/ said...
> In fact, some military interrogators
> have stated the opposite.
Please cite your evidence. I'd be very interested in the precise
nature of their statements.
> KSM was waterboarded to get him to attest to
> the nonexistent link between Iraq and 9/11.
The links between Iraq and 9/11 are exceedingly clear. Sometimes it
really amazes me people still cling to the notion they weren't
related. Despite what you think you heard, they were inexorably tied
from the very beginning.
KSM's testimony wasn't necessary for that in the least.
> In other words, the
> administration used torture to try to justify the lies they told to get
> us into war.
You're making things up now. Is that any way for a grown adult to
behave?
>
> > and led to the destruction and
> > dispersal of some international terrorist-support organizations. He
> > knows, on the other hand, that some of these interrogations yielded
> > nothing of the kind.
>
> He may, in fact, know that *none* of these interrogations yieled anything
> useful. Professionals know that people will say anything to get the pain
> to stop.
Which professionals are those?
Evidently, CIA interrogations are far more scientific than you
imagine. You may be yet another victim of the too-public turf wars
between the FBI and the CIA in this matter.
Questions are asked during interrogations which answers are already
known to the interrogators. The subject can never be sure when he's
begun giving the interrogators information they don't already possess.
Lie detectors are used, and questions are asked over and over again
out of sequence. Answers are analyzed and cross checked. Psychologists
are utilized throughout.
These aren't "rubber hose" sessions by corrupt Chicago cops in the
1920's, despite what the FBI wants you to believe.
From what I understand of KSM's testimony during interrogation, the
most he could have done is exaggerate. Out and out fictions are not
very likely, given the techniques and circumstances.
For instance, "involvement" can become "masterminding from A to Z."
Not a lie; but exaggeration.
It may seem like he was confessing to every crime ever committed,
including the Lizzy Borden Murders, but he wasn't.
>
> > He also knows that the US's War on Terrorism has been extraordinarily
> > successful. While threats remain, the basic issues of the war have
> > been decisively addressed, and threats to the security of the United
> > States are lower than they were in the 1990's when the Islamic Jihadi
> > networks were operating unchecked throughout the world.
>
> The US War on Terrorism has been a disaster.
Criteria?
You must be aware that every war ever fought in the long, sad history
of mankind has been a disaster for all sides involved.
Arguments?
This doesn't mean that no war was worth fighting, btw.
> It's main achievement, the
> war in Iraq with the attendant scandals, have been the best recruiting
> program for terrorists.
No, I'm afraid that's completely incorrect and baseless.
Unresolved issues regarding the disposition of Muslims is the best
recruiting program for Islamic terrorists.
Muslims living and suffering in the Occupied Territories, for
instance.
Muslims living and suffering in the unrecognized state of Afghanistan,
during decades of civil war, for another example.
Muslims living and suffering under the murderous failed sanctions in
Iraq, for yet another.
Bosnia. Chechnya. Somalia. Etc.
This is the fertile soil in which Qutbsim grows so well. This is the
ground out of which sprang Iranian Revolutionary Islamism.
Leaving these situations unresolved is how you breed Islamic
Terrorism.
> And had the worst consequences for relations
> with our allies, real and nominal.
What "worst consequences" are you imagining here? Are you pretending
the curve changed because America went to war in 2001? Or because of
the invasion of 2003?
That's just childish tunnelvision, my newly-born friend.
>
> > He's not certain that the US acted correctly, at all.
>
> In fact, he knows that his predecessors operated outside the law, which
> is to say "not ... correctly," since he's the AG.
No one operated outside the law.
Holder's own law firm is representing 17 Yemeni detainees being held
at Guantanamo Naval Base.
Conflict of interest? Nah. He's the Attorney General. There's only
possible conflict of interest when the government isn't controlled by
a single political party.
Holder personally pushed for the pardon of 16 FALN terrorists at the
end of the Clinton Administration. They had been involved in several
armed robberies, 130 bombings and six murders. No one, including
Holder, ever argued that they had been convicted unfairly.
Has he made a career of rewarding terrorism?
Nah. He's the Attorney General. That can't be. He's only interested in
the rule of law and the intentions of the founders.
Everybody knows that.
>
> > But he's certain
> > that from a pragmatic standpoint, from a strictly results point of
> > view, the war has worked better than anyone anticipated.
>
> The war has been pretty much an unmitigated strategic disaster.
At least we didn't ally with the Soviet Union this time.
> A loss
> in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan, the estrangement of our allies, the
> strengthening of our enemies.
You might say this war has resulted in "the strengthening of our
enemies," if you could, in fact, define who, exactly those "enemies"
are.
But you can't.
You prolly think it's so-called "al-Qaeda."
Heh.
Worse still, you prolly think the Taliban are our enemies.
Well, they are...now.
You might have listened to President Bush when he clearly explained
otherwise. But it's prolly far too late for that now.
>
> >Holderthinks that, since terrorism is now less of a threat, we can
> > safely treat it as a crime, and the Islamic Jihadis can be treated as
> > criminals.
>
> Please stop telling us whatHolderthinks.
The claim I'm responding to was the case for Holder's courageousness.
To determine courage, one must determine state of mind. In other
words, one must assume "what he thinks."
> Given the absurdity of your
> own thought processes, it just makes you look silly.
Guilty as charged, Your Honor.
>
> And some of the Jihadis are criminals.
War criminals.
We didn't drag Goering and Tojo here to try them, did we?
Hell, we didn't even drag Milosevic here.
Which is just as well, since there wasn't enough evidence to detain
him, much less try him in a US court of law. Only the Hague is suited
for the endless, failed show trials we put him through.
Which, as well all know, no one watched anyway.
But, of course, we aren't supposed to speak of that. That was back in
the Golden Age of America before Presidents acted unconstitutionally;
Before there was such a thing as an Ugly American.
> > I can't imagine an any more ignorant or hypocritical position.
>
> As irony meters explode everywhere.
If you could define irony, that might be a clever response.
As it is...
>
> > But
> > then, I've never run across any more hypocritical or blind human
> > beings in my life than any of the government lawyers and prosecutors
> > I've run across IRL or read about in the news.
>
> >Holder, far from being an exception, is an avatar for their hypocrisy.
>
> > Jihadis aren't criminals. They are soldiers.
>
> Nothing prevents them from being both. The Geneva Convention just does
> not allow their status as soldiers to be criminalized.
They fall outside the Conventions.
Again, this is on purpose.
They are unlawful enemy combatants. Holder vacated this status in a
blanket action back in March, IIRC. It was the necessary first step
for all which has followed. Including trial in New York City.
So, let me correct myself: they WERE unlawful enemy combatants.
There is a case to be made that not all the detainees can reasonably
be defined as such. Many detainees were later released because, we
assume, they ultimately failed of the definition. Republicans like to
claim that the detainees were all captured on the battlefield, and
indeed many were. But the fact of the matter is, many were not. KSM,
for instance, was not.
However, KSM claims that he IS an enemy combatant. He says that, "in
the language of war," there is no doubt about his status as an enemy
combatant. He claims to be the George Washington of the international
jihad.
The problem we all have with that isn't the fact that it makes
Washington out as a Revolutionary and Insurrectionist. He certainly
was all that. Nor that he would have undoubtedly been hanged in London
if the French hadn't arrived at Chesapeake Bay when they did. No, even
patriotic Americans who revere his name understand that much. Had
things turned out differently, he would have been thought of as an
infamous rogue.
The problem we have with KSM's statement is that Washington didn't
blow up London in a surprise attack. Or kill women and children
intentionally. Or hide behind women and children.
Washington never claimed that it's my job, or your job, or anyone
else's job to maintain his religion for him.
Mohammed Atta and his sponsors did all that and more. They'd been
doing it for years before 9/11, and they continue to do it today.
Though today, at least, their actions are responded to. In many cases
decisively.
>
> > Those who conduct
> > operations against unarmed civilian non-combatants are guilty of war
> > crimes, of course. But they are not civilian criminals. They have no
> > business in a civilian court of law in the United States.
>
> Those who conduct operations against unarmed civilians are criminals.
> And perhaps we should stop elevating them to level of honorable
> combatants.
They are more honorable than you imagine. Far more civilized, I dare
say, than even you or I. At least in certain important, fundamental
ways.
Just as courage doesn't necessarily equal right, so too honor doesn't
necessarily equal right.
"In Yemen, Islamic scholars challenged a group of defiant al Qaeda
prisoners to a theological debate. 'If you convince us that your ideas
are justified by the Quran, then we will join you in the struggle,'
the scholars told the terrorists. 'But if we succeed in convincing you
of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence.' The scholars
won the debate, and a number of the prisoners renounced violence, were
released, and were given help in finding jobs. Some have since offered
advice to Yemeni security services. A tip from one led to the death of
al Qaeda's top leader in the country."
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2006/truegrit2.html
Treating them as honorable men of God who have been horribly misled is
probably the correct way to "handle" them.
Because, in fact, that's who and what they are. But one thing seems
certain: they aren't criminals in the ordinary sense of the word.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity.
Deadrat
news:85663fd0-00fb-4cb8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 23, 9:18�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear.EricHolderknows this, and
>> >> thanks to his correctdecision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
>> >> acolytes will be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by
>> >> American justice for all to see, observed in court by Americans
>> >> they cannot defeat in a city whose spirit they could not put down.
>> >> This was a courageousdecisionby the attorney general.
>>
>> > Perhaps it was courageous,
>>
>> Courageous? �It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold the
>> rule of law? �Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and Alberto
>> Gonzales, maybe.
>
> You're demonstrating you have no history, of course. Pubic schools?
> This can be overcome, but I'm here to tell you, it ain't easy.
I can't wait for your version of history. Do tell.
And what do public schools have to do with this?
<snip/>
>> > and perhaps the 9/11 attacks were courageous, as well.
>>
>> > Courage = courage. Courage doesn't necessarily equal "right."
>>
>> > The Attorney General is pandering.
>>
>> To whom?
>
> To voting blocks.
The AG is not elected.
>> > His actions, along with the Supreme
>> > Court, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and assorted radicals,
>> > socialists and anarchists are attempting to permanently rupture
>> > America's ability to defend herself.
>>
>> Please detail how following the principles of our founders will
>> restict our ability to defend ourselves. �Be detailed. �Show your
>> work. �Later on
>> in your little screed you will conclude how successful our war on
>> terror has been. �Apparently unimpeded by the previous and successful
>> prosecution of terrorists in civil courts.
>
> All in due time and space. This is Usenet, after all. Much of what
> you're asking for follows.
>>
>> > We assume,
>>
>> Ah, you're about to assume something. �Is that because you have no
>> evidence?
>
> No, I can assure you that's not it.
But soft! I await enlightenment. (*)
<snip/>
>> > The reason the Attorney General is pandering is because he is
>> > painfully aware that the former President had been granted war
>> > powers by Congress to conduct this war.
>>
>> So what?
>
> Congressionally granted war powers change the argument on a
> fundamental level, wouldn't you agree?
I suppose it depends on the argument. War powers do not change the
Constitutional duties of the President to protect the rights of those
under the jurisdiction of US law, and they don't change the plenary
executive power of prsecutorial discretion.
>> > The Administration conducted this war to the best of its abilities,
>>
>> Sadly enough, this is true. �Just they way it conducted the rest of
>> its responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its memebers'
>> abilities.
>
> No administration could or has done much better--nor have
> administrations done much better in war or other emergencies in the
> past.
This is manifestly false. The WPE's father fought the right country.
So did HST and FDR.
> These bring out the worst and the best in all of us, I'm afraid. Even
> for the sterling critics of the War on Terror.
No war is free from error, but as you'll recall we won World War II, and
modern Europe is the result.
>> > and justified all of its actions in
>> > accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the United
>> > States
>>
>> Hardly. �They tortured people, which is against US law and US treaty
>> obligations.
>
> First of all, no torture occurred. It fails all four points of the
> definition. It's true that waterboarding comes close to threatening a
> subject with imminent death. But only close to the threshold. It
> certainly doesn't cross it...on purpose.
Sorry, but the defintion of torturers is not the legal one. Here's the
definition from Convention against Torture, to which we are a signatory:
<quote>
... [T]he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession.... </quote>
After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese officers for exactly this
torture practiced against US personnel.
>
> Second, you can't cite relevant US case law which applies to unlawful
> enemy combatants. On the other paw, the Eisentrager decision is rather
> clear in this regard--it's certainly legal for the US military to
> detain unlawful enemy combatants overseas without legal protections or
> permitting recourse.
The Convention Against Torture applies to anyone in the custody of the
state. It is certainly legal to detain unlawful enemy combatants
overseas (or lawful enemy combatants, for that matter), but once they
are within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, some things change.
>
> Third, unlawful enemy combatants are purposely not included within the
> definitions of the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not
> protected. Loosely organized terrorists and anarchists operating
> clandestinely across international borders cannot be afforded
> protections by any society interested in its own survival.
Unlawful enemy combatants do not gain some of the protections afforded
to lawful enemy combatants. For instance, unlawful enemy combatants may
be called before a criminal court for their participation in war; lawful
enemy combatants may not. Unlawful enemy combatants still may not be
abused.
> These unasked for, unearned and undeserved protections especially must
> not be granted to these organizations' members who've have proved
> competent enough to murder 3,000 people in a single morning.
Your opinion is noted. It's not what the Supreme Court has ruled.
<snip/>
>> They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
>> Supreme Court ruled was illegal. �They set up military tribunals to
>> try Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were illegal.
>>
>> And lying us into war and then lying about it? �At least there's
>> precedent for that.
>
> No one lied you into war, Princess.
> Why on earth would you believe you were?
WMDs ring a bell? Aluminum tubes? Yellowcake from Niger? Saddam and
9/11? Nothing? You bought it all?
<snip/>
> The case for OIF wasn't shaky in the least. The necessity for an
> invasion of Iraq was made manifest by the 9/11 Attacks. How could it
> be any more clear?
There could have been the actual involvement of Iraq in the attack, for
instance.
> Again, you don't have any history, facts or context. So, naturally
> enough, you believe you were lied into the war. Perhaps because of
> something you thought you heard?
I wasn't hearing things, as most people heard the same: Saddam helped
execute 9/11, and he was an imminent threat since he had weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear, biological, and chemical.
>> In other words, they were cowards, too scared
>> for their political futures to do the right thing.
>
> They demonstrably did the right thing according to the situation and
> the information available to them. At least in the cases which you
> think you're referring.
Your opinion is noted.
>> But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing illegal
>> acts.
>
> They weren't.
Not what the WPE claimed.
>> >Holderis painfully aware that this war is
>> > against nebulous, shadowy organizations no one will ever fully
>> > understand (much like the Costa Nostra and related organizations in
>> > the US). He knows that some of these organizations have been
>> > ignored in favor of taking on a few of them singly.
>>
>> I understand that you're scared.
>
> Kid, I'm not scared of the terrorists.
If you say so. You sure seem scared to me.
> The fact of the matter is, a terrorist can only terrorize those who
> can't fight back.
I hope you're not relying on your powers of reason.
>> These organizations are scary. �But
>> suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders left
>> us.
>
> The organizations aren't scary; they're dangerous. There's a
> difference.
Well, things I know to be dangerous scare me. YMMV.
> As to the founders, if you're going to continue to evoke them, you
> should be able to cite them. You obviously have some evidence in mind
> that would show how, where and why their principles for this nation's
> laws were violated in the conduct of the War on Terror.
Habeas corpus not ring a bell? How about the President being above the
law?
> Please present it now, or retract your silly, unspecified indictments.
>
> For instance, it might interest you to learn that Thomas Jefferson was
> the first US President to illegally commence a war against Islamic
> Terrorists.
Jefferson had the authorization of Congress in 1801.
>> > He knows that mistakes were made in the detaining of some
>> > individuals, and that some fairly innocent bystanders had been
>> > incorrectly detained and defined as unlawful enemy combatants.
>>
>> He knows some were killed.
>
> Oops.
>> > He knows that some detainees
>> > had confessions wrested from them under harsh interrogations.
>>
>> Let's call it like it is. �He knows some detainees were tortured,
>> using methods that led to us indict and convict Japanese officers of
>> war crimes after World War II.
>
> That's just silly.
Those convicted didn't think so.
> Your arguments won't work here at Usenet, because you can't assume we
> have no context. Some of us do.
The context of the voices inside your head? No thanks.
> Waterboarding isn't torture according to relevant legal definitions.
The relevant legal definitions aren't set by torturers.
> If you hold a different definition, that's your problem, but it's not
> mine. It's only my problem when it becomes law.
It is law. The law passed to comply with our joining the Convention
Against Torture.
>
> It's illegal for anyone to use waterboarding or other harsh
> interrogation techniques against soldiers captured in uniform, or
> against civilians. Under all circumstances.
>
> The famous "only give them your name, rank and serial number," adage
> is based on the Conventions.
>
> There are situational differences involved. And differences are
> crucial.
>
> Besides, the Japanese in question weren't just waterboarding. You're
> conflating--or you're asserting a fallacy of the biased sample.
Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted if all they'd
have done is waterboard?
Noted.
>
>>
>> > He knows
>> > that some of these interrogations yielded actionable intelligence
>> > that saved America from some deadly attacks,
>>
>> He may know this. �But you don't.
>
> Nor do you.
You're the one making the claim.
> Well, /he/ said...
>
>> In fact, some military interrogators have stated the opposite.
>
> Please cite your evidence. I'd be very interested in the precise
> nature of their statements.
Google "torture doesn't work"; pick your way through the results.
>> KSM was waterboarded to get him to attest to
>> the nonexistent link between Iraq and 9/11.
>
> The links between Iraq and 9/11 are exceedingly clear.
Only if by "clear," you mean nonexistent.
> Sometimes it
> really amazes me people still cling to the notion they weren't
> related. Despite what you think you heard, they were inexorably tied
> from the very beginning.
As the man said, let's hear your evidence.
>
> KSM's testimony wasn't necessary for that in the least.
>
>> In other words, the
>> administration used torture to try to justify the lies they told to
>> get us into war.
>
> You're making things up now. Is that any way for a grown adult to
> behave?
I wasn't there, but I'll rely on the report of the 07/04 Select
Committee on Intelligence and the 11/20/08 report of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, "Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US
Custody."
>>
>> > and led to the destruction and
>> > dispersal of some international terrorist-support organizations. He
>> > knows, on the other hand, that some of these interrogations yielded
>> > nothing of the kind.
>>
>> He may, in fact, know that *none* of these interrogations yieled
>> anything useful. �Professionals know that people will say anything to
>> get the pain to stop.
>
> Which professionals are those?
You'll have read the experts when you follow the suggestion above.
<snip/>
>> > He also knows that the US's War on Terrorism has been
>> > extraordinarily successful. While threats remain, the basic issues
>> > of the war have been decisively addressed, and threats to the
>> > security of the United States are lower than they were in the
>> > 1990's when the Islamic Jihadi networks were operating unchecked
>> > throughout the world.
>>
>> The US War on Terrorism has been a disaster.
>
> Criteria?
>
> You must be aware that every war ever fought in the long, sad history
> of mankind has been a disaster for all sides involved.
>
> Arguments?
>
> This doesn't mean that no war was worth fighting, btw.
>
>> It's main achievement, the
>> war in Iraq with the attendant scandals, have been the best
>> recruiting program for terrorists.
>
> No, I'm afraid that's completely incorrect and baseless.
So you claim.
>
> Unresolved issues regarding the disposition of Muslims is the best
> recruiting program for Islamic terrorists.
Arguments? Evidence?
<snip/>
>> In fact, he knows that his predecessors operated outside the law,
>> which is to say "not ... correctly," since he's the AG.
>
> No one operated outside the law.
Not what the Supreme Court said. Not what our treaty obligations say.
<snip/>
>> > But he's certain
>> > that from a pragmatic standpoint, from a strictly results point of
>> > view, the war has worked better than anyone anticipated.
>>
>> The war has been pretty much an unmitigated strategic disaster.
>
> At least we didn't ally with the Soviet Union this time.
>
>> A loss
>> in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan, the estrangement of our allies, the
>> strengthening of our enemies.
>
> You might say this war has resulted in "the strengthening of our
> enemies," if you could, in fact, define who, exactly those "enemies"
> are.
Let's start with the Taliban's allies in Pakistan.
>
> But you can't.
>
> You prolly think it's so-called "al-Qaeda."
>
> Heh.
>
> Worse still, you prolly think the Taliban are our enemies.
>
> Well, they are...now.
>
> You might have listened to President Bush when he clearly explained
> otherwise. But it's prolly far too late for that now.
I've listened to the WPE. I don't think he ever explained anything
clearly.
<snip/>
>> Nothing prevents them from being both. �The Geneva Convention just
>> does not allow their status as soldiers to be criminalized.
>
> They fall outside the Conventions.
>
> Again, this is on purpose.
Again, just because the protections afforded legal combatants are not
available to illegal combatants doesn't mean that it's legal to abuse the
latter.
<snipped: irrelevant (though interesting) rant/>
> Treating them as honorable men of God who have been horribly misled is
> probably the correct way to "handle" them.
>
> Because, in fact, that's who and what they are. But one thing seems
> certain: they aren't criminals in the ordinary sense of the word.
Let's see what the federal court says.
> --
> Neolibertarian
<snip/>
* Imagine my disappointment!
AnAmericanCitizen
These terrorists have let it be known that they intend to make the trial all about
the United States and not in a good way. You Democrats will probably stand and cheer
when you hear our country being trashed....AAC
Iarnrod
So fuckin' what? They won't get to say it. It's not a Broadway play.
it's a trial. You don't get to stand up and ad lib. Obama made the
right call here.
>You Democrats will probably stand and cheer
Correction: You traitor Taliban-loving redopicans will cheer.
Deadrat
news:qmapg5t73muhkeft0...@4ax.com:
Terrorists can say anything they want about my country, and I won't
consider it for a moment "trashed." After all, we're dealing with people
who glorify the murder of innocents. Who cares what they say?
The President of the United States lies the country into war and treats
the Constitution like a piece of waste paper? Now *that's* "trashing" my
country.
The terrorists on trial can make whatever they want "known." No federal
judge is going to allow his courtroom to become a soapbox for
irrelevancies. We've tried a number of terrorists in civilian courts.
Can you remember a single thing a defendant said?
Bret Cahill
You really think terrorists could be more persuasive than hate radio
and Faux Noise?
American hating Repugs need to stop being persuaded by terrorists.
And hate radio.
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> NeoLibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:85663fd0-00fb-4cb8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:18�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear.EricHolderknows this, and
> >> >> thanks to his correctdecision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
> >> >> acolytes will be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded by
> >> >> American justice for all to see, observed in court by Americans
> >> >> they cannot defeat in a city whose spirit they could not put down.
> >> >> This was a courageousdecisionby the attorney general.
> >>
> >> > Perhaps it was courageous,
> >>
> >> Courageous? �It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold the
> >> rule of law? �Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and Alberto
> >> Gonzales, maybe.
> >
> > You're demonstrating you have no history, of course. Pubic schools?
> > This can be overcome, but I'm here to tell you, it ain't easy.
>
> I can't wait for your version of history. Do tell.
Soon enough.
>
> And what do public schools have to do with this?
Everything, I imagine.
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> > and perhaps the 9/11 attacks were courageous, as well.
> >>
> >> > Courage = courage. Courage doesn't necessarily equal "right."
> >>
> >> > The Attorney General is pandering.
> >>
> >> To whom?
> >
> > To voting blocks.
>
> The AG is not elected.
Heh. Good one.
Right, but show relevancies for either case.
You knew, for instance, that Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the
judiciary committee asked that greater wire tap authority for the
executive should be included in what became known as the Patriot Act?
"[Senator Patrick J. Leahy] and the Justice Department have recommended
that law enforcement officials be given broader authority for wire taps
that permit surveillance of suspects as they move from telephone to
telephone, as opposed to surveillance of a specific telephone."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E3DE103BF933A1575AC0A9
679C8B63&scp=3&sq=Democrat++&st=nyt
Furthermore:
"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first
look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from
reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the
bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention
sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make
their prisoners talk.
"'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,'
said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120
801664.html
Of course, back then airplanes were falling out of the skies over
Washington and Congressional leaders were receiving packets of
weaponized anthrax in the mail all the time.
That aside, War Powers change the argument because, obviously, the
President is charged with prosecuting a war.
War powers are rather broad, and have been throughout the history of the
United States.
>
> >> > The Administration conducted this war to the best of its abilities,
> >>
> >> Sadly enough, this is true. �Just they way it conducted the rest of
> >> its responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its memebers'
> >> abilities.
> >
> > No administration could or has done much better--nor have
> > administrations done much better in war or other emergencies in the
> > past.
>
> This is manifestly false. The WPE's father fought the right country.
Panama?
> So did HST
Korea?
> and FDR.
Funny you should bring up the pimp in the wheelchair.
Did you know he officially signed off on a "Germany First" policy almost
a full year before 12/7?
Back then he was declaring to the American people that he "wanted none
of it," when referring to the War in Europe.
Even so, he conducted a secret war against Germany that summer in the
Atlantic, explicitly attempting to goad Hitler into war.
Then came the attack on Oahu, and what did he do? Why, he sent 10% of
America's military to the Pacific, and sent a double army...NOT to
attack the Germans, but to attack the FRENCH in North Africa!
Please explain how this is fighting "the right country," again?
> > These bring out the worst and the best in all of us, I'm afraid. Even
> > for the sterling critics of the War on Terror.
>
> No war is free from error, but as you'll recall we won World War II, and
> modern Europe is the result.
I recall that we did not win World War II. We immediately found
ourselves fighting a Cold War with allies that should never have been
our allies in the first place. 100,000 Americans would lose their lives
in that "cold" war.
"I think if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing
from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and
will work with me for a world of peace and democracy."
� � � � � � ---Franklin Roosevelt
It might have been worse if he hadn't died before the end of the war,
and his successors were left to deal with the intractable mess he's
created.
>
> >> > and justified all of its actions in
> >> > accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the United
> >> > States
> >>
> >> Hardly. �They tortured people, which is against US law and US treaty
> >> obligations.
> >
> > First of all, no torture occurred. It fails all four points of the
> > definition. It's true that waterboarding comes close to threatening a
> > subject with imminent death. But only close to the threshold. It
> > certainly doesn't cross it...on purpose.
>
> Sorry, but the defintion of torturers is not the legal one. Here's the
> definition from Convention against Torture, to which we are a signatory:
>
> <quote>
> ... [T]he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
> suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
> person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
> information or a confession.... </quote>
That's a deliberately vague definition, of course.
No severe physical pain is involved in waterboarding. Severe mental pain
is a subjective value judgement. Frowning at a detainee or speaking
harshly might qualify.
Or might not.
US Federal Law is far more clear:
(1) �torture� means an act committed by a person acting under the color
of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain
or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) �severe mental pain or suffering� means the prolonged mental harm
caused by or resulting from�
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
We routinely waterboard all of our own combat pilots. None of them
report having liked being waterboarded. It's at best a gray area.
Certainly not as clear cut as you wish to make out.
Any President who, duly granted war powers by Congress, WOULDN'T step
into a gray area that could likely provide vital intelligence in the
prosecution of that war, would be malfeasant of his duties.
> After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese officers for exactly this
> torture practiced against US personnel.
Not exactly. And you're conflating waterboarding into a whole
smorgasbord of officially recognized torture practices.
> > Second, you can't cite relevant US case law which applies to unlawful
> > enemy combatants. On the other paw, the Eisentrager decision is rather
> > clear in this regard--it's certainly legal for the US military to
> > detain unlawful enemy combatants overseas without legal protections or
> > permitting recourse.
>
> The Convention Against Torture applies to anyone in the custody of the
> state. It is certainly legal to detain unlawful enemy combatants
> overseas (or lawful enemy combatants, for that matter), but once they
> are within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, some things change.
Which is why the Eisentrager decision was handed down the way it was.
It would be stupid to bring these detainees to the United States, for
instance.
> >
> > Third, unlawful enemy combatants are purposely not included within the
> > definitions of the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not
> > protected. Loosely organized terrorists and anarchists operating
> > clandestinely across international borders cannot be afforded
> > protections by any society interested in its own survival.
>
> Unlawful enemy combatants do not gain some of the protections afforded
> to lawful enemy combatants. For instance, unlawful enemy combatants may
> be called before a criminal court for their participation in war; lawful
> enemy combatants may not. Unlawful enemy combatants still may not be
> abused.
According only to the treaty on torture. Which is vague and largely
undefined. This is on purpose, of course, or they'd never get a large
number of countries to sign it in the first place.
> > These unasked for, unearned and undeserved protections especially must
> > not be granted to these organizations' members who've have proved
> > competent enough to murder 3,000 people in a single morning.
>
> Your opinion is noted. It's not what the Supreme Court has ruled.
The Supreme Court isn't the final authority they imagine themselves to
be.
According to the Supreme Court, Americans of African descent could never
be citizens of the United States (Dred Scot), it decided that an entire
ethnic population could be herded into concentration camps (Korematsu),
that blacks should be kept from using the same restrooms as whites
(Plessy v. Ferguson), etc., etc., blech.
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
> >> Supreme Court ruled was illegal. �They set up military tribunals to
> >> try Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were illegal.
> >>
> >> And lying us into war and then lying about it? �At least there's
> >> precedent for that.
> >
> > No one lied you into war, Princess.
>
> > Why on earth would you believe you were?
>
> WMDs ring a bell? Aluminum tubes? Yellowcake from Niger? Saddam and
> 9/11? Nothing? You bought it all?
No lies in the whole bunch, I'm afraid.
Are you, or do you know of anyone who has asserted that Saddam Hussein
was NOT in material breach of UNSCR 687 or 1441?
I can assure you that he was perpetually in material breach of those
resolutions for their entire existence. The UN and ISG have done nothing
but further substantiate this simple fact since 2003.
>
> <snip/>
>
> > The case for OIF wasn't shaky in the least. The necessity for an
> > invasion of Iraq was made manifest by the 9/11 Attacks. How could it
> > be any more clear?
>
> There could have been the actual involvement of Iraq in the attack, for
> instance.
That's just plain silliness. You sound like the blithering idiots across
the pond in Parliament.
Iraq's possible involvement in the planning and execution of the 9/11
attacks would have only made it clearer to the unwashed masses, perhaps.
Which is why they were looked into, certainly. And why they were
speculated about.
Completely unnecessary to the casus belli for OIF, of course.
>
> > Again, you don't have any history, facts or context. So, naturally
> > enough, you believe you were lied into the war. Perhaps because of
> > something you thought you heard?
>
> I wasn't hearing things, as most people heard the same: Saddam helped
> execute 9/11, and he was an imminent threat since he had weapons of mass
> destruction, nuclear, biological, and chemical.
There was never an official claim that Saddam "helped execute 9/11."
Powell's speech to the UN delineated Saddam Hussein's role as a sponsor
of transnational Islamic Terrorist groups and the long list of
deceptions enacted by Iraqi officials against the UN inspections regime.
While some of the details later proved to be incorrect, the case Powell
made has been shown to be essentially correct. In fact, Hussein's role
in the support of international jihad groups (which constitute further
material breaches of the cease fire resolution) proved to be completely
understated.
>
> >> In other words, they were cowards, too scared
> >> for their political futures to do the right thing.
> >
> > They demonstrably did the right thing according to the situation and
> > the information available to them. At least in the cases which you
> > think you're referring.
>
> Your opinion is noted.
>
> >> But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing illegal
> >> acts.
> >
> > They weren't.
>
> Not what the WPE claimed.
Please cite.
>
> >> >Holderis painfully aware that this war is
> >> > against nebulous, shadowy organizations no one will ever fully
> >> > understand (much like the Costa Nostra and related organizations in
> >> > the US). He knows that some of these organizations have been
> >> > ignored in favor of taking on a few of them singly.
> >>
> >> I understand that you're scared.
> >
> > Kid, I'm not scared of the terrorists.
>
> If you say so. You sure seem scared to me.
>
> > The fact of the matter is, a terrorist can only terrorize those who
> > can't fight back.
>
> I hope you're not relying on your powers of reason.
well that...and the logic of steel.
>
> >> These organizations are scary. �But
> >> suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders left
> >> us.
> >
> > The organizations aren't scary; they're dangerous. There's a
> > difference.
>
> Well, things I know to be dangerous scare me. YMMV.
Being scared is an unnecessary distraction. It can mess with your aim.
>
> > As to the founders, if you're going to continue to evoke them, you
> > should be able to cite them. You obviously have some evidence in mind
> > that would show how, where and why their principles for this nation's
> > laws were violated in the conduct of the War on Terror.
>
> Habeas corpus not ring a bell?
Ex parte Quirin.
> How about the President being above the
> law?
Now you sound like a mindless drone. Stop it, it's not becoming.
Get yourself some history and context.
>
> > Please present it now, or retract your silly, unspecified indictments.
> >
> > For instance, it might interest you to learn that Thomas Jefferson was
> > the first US President to illegally commence a war against Islamic
> > Terrorists.
>
> Jefferson had the authorization of Congress in 1801.
Not when he began the war.
Remember, he sent the fleet over the horizon without telling Congress
the truth. In those days, believe it or not, they didn't have the
internet or cell phones or anything! Those captains were sent into war
before Congress was informed. There was no recalling them at that point.
Which Jefferson, the rascal, knew very well.
I know, I know! He was just a pawn of the bourgeoisie shipping merchants
and Halliburton & Sons Import Company.
>
> >> > He knows that mistakes were made in the detaining of some
> >> > individuals, and that some fairly innocent bystanders had been
> >> > incorrectly detained and defined as unlawful enemy combatants.
> >>
> >> He knows some were killed.
> >
> > Oops.
>
> >> > He knows that some detainees
> >> > had confessions wrested from them under harsh interrogations.
> >>
> >> Let's call it like it is. �He knows some detainees were tortured,
> >> using methods that led to us indict and convict Japanese officers of
> >> war crimes after World War II.
> >
> > That's just silly.
>
> Those convicted didn't think so.
>
> > Your arguments won't work here at Usenet, because you can't assume we
> > have no context. Some of us do.
>
> The context of the voices inside your head? No thanks.
>
> > Waterboarding isn't torture according to relevant legal definitions.
>
> The relevant legal definitions aren't set by torturers.
>
> > If you hold a different definition, that's your problem, but it's not
> > mine. It's only my problem when it becomes law.
>
> It is law. The law passed to comply with our joining the Convention
> Against Torture.
The relevant definitions from Title 18 are presented above.
> >
> > It's illegal for anyone to use waterboarding or other harsh
> > interrogation techniques against soldiers captured in uniform, or
> > against civilians. Under all circumstances.
> >
> > The famous "only give them your name, rank and serial number," adage
> > is based on the Conventions.
> >
> > There are situational differences involved. And differences are
> > crucial.
> >
> > Besides, the Japanese in question weren't just waterboarding. You're
> > conflating--or you're asserting a fallacy of the biased sample.
>
> Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted if all they'd
> have done is waterboard?
>
> Noted.
I'm not speculating. The fact is they didn't "just" waterboard.
> >
> >>
> >> > He knows
> >> > that some of these interrogations yielded actionable intelligence
> >> > that saved America from some deadly attacks,
> >>
> >> He may know this. �But you don't.
> >
> > Nor do you.
>
> You're the one making the claim.
Actually, it's a case of "Well, /he/ said..."
>
> > Well, /he/ said...
> >
> >> In fact, some military interrogators have stated the opposite.
> >
> > Please cite your evidence. I'd be very interested in the precise
> > nature of their statements.
>
> Google "torture doesn't work"; pick your way through the results.
Google isn't a cite.
>
> >> KSM was waterboarded to get him to attest to
> >> the nonexistent link between Iraq and 9/11.
> >
> > The links between Iraq and 9/11 are exceedingly clear.
>
> Only if by "clear," you mean nonexistent.
Non-existent only to the idiots and sterling critics who have no
relevant place in adult discussions about the War on Terror.
In August of 1995, the FAO published a study (the conclusions of which
were latter withdrawn) claiming more than 500,000 excess deaths of Iraqi
children had occurred due to the UN sanctions against Iraq.
Osama bin Laden in 1996 declared war against the United States for
several reasons, not the least of which was America's role in
championing the failed UN sanctions against Iraq. Bin Laden repeatedly
cited the numbers of dead from the UN studies as evidence of America's
harmful transgressions.
That year Iranian backed Shi'ite jihadis attacked the US personnel at
Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia. These Americans were there
enforcing the sanctions against Iraq. This was the second attack against
American personnel in Saudi Arabia in the space of a year. Bin Laden
specifically mentioned these attacks in his war-fatwa, claiming they
should show the the Youth of Islam the way to throw off the yolk of the
infidel oppressor.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
In 1998, bin Laden reissued his fatwa, again citing the intolerable and
ignoble circumstances of the Iraq sanctions as a primary casus belli. He
clearly linked the oppression of the Iraqis to the oppression of the
Palestinians by Israel in the Occupied Territories. This time, his fatwa
was formerly endorsed by jihad leaders from over 20 countries.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
Along with the accompanying attacks on the US embassies in Africa, this
fatwa, and the large contingent which endorsed it, the Director of
Central Intelligence became alarmed enough to declare "We are at war" in
an interagency directive that December.
Then, in 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in Arden Harbor off the coast
of Yemen. The Cole was there because she was in the Gulf, enforcing the
sanctions against Iraq.
There is no question that these attacks and the 9/11 attacks were
mounted for and on behalf of the Iraqi people, and in answer to their
voiceless plight.
It is completely impossible to imagine redressing the 9/11 attacks
without definitively resolving the intractable disaster of the UN
sanctions in Iraq.
Or are you one of the abysmal idiots who ignorantly claimed "we should
give the sanctions a chance to work"?
Deadrat
news:bf293$4b0cda35$18f55223$30...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <1rqdnXytzZ4hC5HW...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> NeoLibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:85663fd0-00fb-4cb8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 9:18�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> Terrorists' primary weapon is fear.EricHolderknows this, and
>> >> >> thanks to his correctdecision, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
>> >> >> acolytes will be seen for the little motes they are, surrounded
>> >> >> by American justice for all to see, observed in court by
>> >> >> Americans they cannot defeat in a city whose spirit they could
>> >> >> not put down. This was a courageousdecisionby the attorney
>> >> >> general.
>> >>
>> >> > Perhaps it was courageous,
>> >>
>> >> Courageous? �It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold
>> >> the rule of law? �Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and
>> >> Alberto Gonzales, maybe.
>> >
>> > You're demonstrating you have no history, of course. Pubic schools?
>> > This can be overcome, but I'm here to tell you, it ain't easy.
<snip/>
>> >> So what?
>> >
>> > Congressionally granted war powers change the argument on a
>> > fundamental level, wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> I suppose it depends on the argument. War powers do not change the
>> Constitutional duties of the President to protect the rights of those
>> under the jurisdiction of US law, and they don't change the plenary
>> executive power of prsecutorial discretion.
>
> Right, but show relevancies for either case.
War powers do not change the AG's obligation or authority to try
criminals.
<snipped: Patick Leahy is bad/>
<snipped: four members of Congress briefed on interrogations are bad/>
One of the nice things about not being an ideologue is that I feel no
obligation to support people based on party labels. Whether Patrick
Leahy wanted to strenghten the so-called Patriot Act or whether any
members of Congress approved of illegal interrogations can hardly make
any diffeence to an argument about Eric Holder's decision to try
terrorists in civilian courts.
> Of course, back then airplanes were falling out of the skies over
> Washington and Congressional leaders were receiving packets of
> weaponized anthrax in the mail all the time.
When KSM was being tortured, neither of these things was happening.
And so what?
> That aside, War Powers change the argument because, obviously, the
> President is charged with prosecuting a war.
>
> War powers are rather broad, and have been throughout the history of
> the United States.
They do not extend to breaking the law. In any case, the WPE is out of
office. What does his peculiar interpretation of his powers have to do
with Eric Holder?
>> >> > The Administration conducted this war to the best of its
>> >> > abilities,
>> >>
>> >> Sadly enough, this is true. �Just they way it conducted the rest
>> >> of its responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its
>> >> memebers' abilities.
>> >
>> > No administration could or has done much better--nor have
>> > administrations done much better in war or other emergencies in the
>> > past.
>>
>> This is manifestly false. The WPE's father fought the right country.
>
> Panama?
Heh. Confronted with the task of arresting Noriega, his son would have
invaded Peru.
>
>> So did HST
>
> Korea?
>
>> and FDR.
>
> Funny you should bring up the pimp in the wheelchair.
>
> Did you know he officially signed off on a "Germany First" policy
> almost a full year before 12/7?
>
> Back then he was declaring to the American people that he "wanted none
> of it," when referring to the War in Europe.
>
> Even so, he conducted a secret war against Germany that summer in the
> Atlantic, explicitly attempting to goad Hitler into war.
>
> Then came the attack on Oahu, and what did he do? Why, he sent 10% of
> America's military to the Pacific, and sent a double army...NOT to
> attack the Germans, but to attack the FRENCH in North Africa!
>
> Please explain how this is fighting "the right country," again?
Six months after the attack on Oahu, the US Navy won the Battle of
Midway, defeating the French navy.
Did I say the French navy? I might have that one wrong.
>> > These bring out the worst and the best in all of us, I'm afraid.
>> > Even for the sterling critics of the War on Terror.
>>
>> No war is free from error, but as you'll recall we won World War II,
>> and modern Europe is the result.
>
> I recall that we did not win World War II.
Oh, that's right. The Axis Powers won.
Wait. I might have got that wrong as well.
> We immediately found ourselves fighting a Cold War
Which we also won.
<snip/>
>>
>> >> > and justified all of its actions in
>> >> > accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the
>> >> > United States
>> >>
>> >> Hardly. �They tortured people, which is against US law and US
>> >> treaty obligations.
>> >
>> > First of all, no torture occurred. It fails all four points of the
>> > definition. It's true that waterboarding comes close to threatening
>> > a subject with imminent death. But only close to the threshold. It
>> > certainly doesn't cross it...on purpose.
>>
>> Sorry, but the defintion of torturers is not the legal one. Here's
>> the definition from Convention against Torture, to which we are a
>> signatory:
>>
>> <quote>
>> ... [T]he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
>> suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on
>> a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
>> information or a confession.... </quote>
>
> That's a deliberately vague definition, of course.
Only if you're perverse.
>
> No severe physical pain is involved in waterboarding.
Sure. Easy to say when you're dry.
> Severe mental pain is a subjective value judgement.
No amount of weasel-words is gonna change the facts.
> Frowning at a detainee or speaking harshly might qualify.
I've been frowned at before. No pain at all.
>
> Or might not.
>
> US Federal Law is far more clear:
>
> (1) �torture� means an act committed by a person acting under the
> color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
> mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
> lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
> control;
>
> (2) �severe mental pain or suffering� means the prolonged mental harm
> caused by or resulting from�
>
> (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
> physical pain or suffering;
>
> (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
> application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures
> calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
>
> (C) the threat of imminent death; or
>
> (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
> death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
> application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
> to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
Pretty much reflects the Convention. Thanks.
> We routinely waterboard all of our own combat pilots. None of them
> report having liked being waterboarded. It's at best a gray area.
>
> Certainly not as clear cut as you wish to make out.
It was pretty clear cut when we tried Japanese commanders after World War
II.
> Any President who, duly granted war powers by Congress, WOULDN'T step
> into a gray area that could likely provide vital intelligence in the
> prosecution of that war, would be malfeasant of his duties.
Of course, it didn't provide "vital intelligence," and likely wouldn't.
But what the hell, if the WPE could prove the ends of coercing a
confession that Iraq was tied to 9/11, then it would justify the means,
eh?
>> After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese officers for exactly this
>> torture practiced against US personnel.
>
> Not exactly. And you're conflating waterboarding into a whole
> smorgasbord of officially recognized torture practices.
Keep weaseling. It won't change the facts.
>> > Second, you can't cite relevant US case law which applies to
>> > unlawful enemy combatants. On the other paw, the Eisentrager
>> > decision is rather clear in this regard--it's certainly legal for
>> > the US military to detain unlawful enemy combatants overseas
>> > without legal protections or permitting recourse.
>>
>> The Convention Against Torture applies to anyone in the custody of
>> the state. It is certainly legal to detain unlawful enemy combatants
>> overseas (or lawful enemy combatants, for that matter), but once they
>> are within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, some things change.
>
> Which is why the Eisentrager decision was handed down the way it was.
>
> It would be stupid to bring these detainees to the United States, for
> instance.
Well, blame that "blunder" on the WPE.
>> > Third, unlawful enemy combatants are purposely not included within
>> > the definitions of the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not
>> > protected. Loosely organized terrorists and anarchists operating
>> > clandestinely across international borders cannot be afforded
>> > protections by any society interested in its own survival.
>>
>> Unlawful enemy combatants do not gain some of the protections
>> afforded to lawful enemy combatants. For instance, unlawful enemy
>> combatants may be called before a criminal court for their
>> participation in war; lawful enemy combatants may not. Unlawful
>> enemy combatants still may not be abused.
>
> According only to the treaty on torture. Which is vague and largely
> undefined. This is on purpose, of course, or they'd never get a large
> number of countries to sign it in the first place.
Keep weaselin'.
>
>> > These unasked for, unearned and undeserved protections especially
>> > must not be granted to these organizations' members who've have
>> > proved competent enough to murder 3,000 people in a single morning.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted. It's not what the Supreme Court has ruled.
>
> The Supreme Court isn't the final authority they imagine themselves to
> be.
They are for matter of US law.
> According to the Supreme Court, Americans of African descent could
> never be citizens of the United States (Dred Scot), it decided that an
> entire ethnic population could be herded into concentration camps
> (Korematsu), that blacks should be kept from using the same restrooms
> as whites (Plessy v. Ferguson), etc., etc., blech.
The Supreme Court isn't always right from a societal point of view, but
it's always the arbiter of what the law is.
Keep weaselin'.
>> <snip/>
>>
>> >> They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
>> >> Supreme Court ruled was illegal. �They set up military tribunals
>> >> to try Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were
>> >> illegal.
>> >>
>> >> And lying us into war and then lying about it? �At least there's
>> >> precedent for that.
>> >
>> > No one lied you into war, Princess.
>>
>> > Why on earth would you believe you were?
>>
>> WMDs ring a bell? Aluminum tubes? Yellowcake from Niger? Saddam
>> and 9/11? Nothing? You bought it all?
>
> No lies in the whole bunch, I'm afraid.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> Are you, or do you know of anyone who has asserted that Saddam Hussein
> was NOT in material breach of UNSCR 687 or 1441?
>
> I can assure you that he was perpetually in material breach of those
> resolutions for their entire existence. The UN and ISG have done
> nothing but further substantiate this simple fact since 2003.
And none of those breaches would have persuaded Congress to grant war
powers to the WPE. Which is why he needed the lies you still can't see.
Would it make you feel better to call them "fudging the truth a bit"?
>> <snip/>
>>
>> > The case for OIF wasn't shaky in the least. The necessity for an
>> > invasion of Iraq was made manifest by the 9/11 Attacks. How could
>> > it be any more clear?
>>
>> There could have been the actual involvement of Iraq in the attack,
>> for instance.
>
> That's just plain silliness. You sound like the blithering idiots
> across the pond in Parliament.
>
> Iraq's possible involvement in the planning and execution of the 9/11
> attacks would have only made it clearer to the unwashed masses,
> perhaps. Which is why they were looked into, certainly. And why they
> were speculated about.
Would have. But couldn't.
>
> Completely unnecessary to the casus belli for OIF, of course.
Without the claim of 9/11 connection and the claim of imminent threat,
there would have been no war.
>> > Again, you don't have any history, facts or context. So, naturally
>> > enough, you believe you were lied into the war. Perhaps because of
>> > something you thought you heard?
>>
>> I wasn't hearing things, as most people heard the same: Saddam helped
>> execute 9/11, and he was an imminent threat since he had weapons of
>> mass destruction, nuclear, biological, and chemical.
>
> There was never an official claim that Saddam "helped execute 9/11."
Keep weaselin'.
> Powell's speech to the UN delineated Saddam Hussein's role as a
> sponsor of transnational Islamic Terrorist groups and the long list of
> deceptions enacted by Iraqi officials against the UN inspections
> regime. While some of the details later proved to be incorrect,
Damn! I hate it when crucial parts of my arguments (er, "details")
"prove to be incorrect." Don't you?
> case Powell made has been shown to be essentially correct. In fact,
> Hussein's role in the support of international jihad groups (which
> constitute further material breaches of the cease fire resolution)
> proved to be completely understated.
If by "essentially correct," you mean "mostly wrong." Those mobile labs,
for instance.
>> >> In other words, they were cowards, too scared
>> >> for their political futures to do the right thing.
>> >
>> > They demonstrably did the right thing according to the situation
>> > and the information available to them. At least in the cases which
>> > you think you're referring.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted.
>>
>> >> But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing
>> >> illegal acts.
>> >
>> > They weren't.
>>
>> Not what the WPE claimed.
>
> Please cite.
Look up the Bybee memo.
<snip/>
>>
>> > The fact of the matter is, a terrorist can only terrorize those who
>> > can't fight back.
>>
>> I hope you're not relying on your powers of reason.
>
> well that...and the logic of steel.
Bwahahahahahahaha. Thanks for the levity.
>> >> These organizations are scary. �But
>> >> suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders
>> >> left us.
>> >
>> > The organizations aren't scary; they're dangerous. There's a
>> > difference.
>>
>> Well, things I know to be dangerous scare me. YMMV.
>
> Being scared is an unnecessary distraction. It can mess with your aim.
Anyone can play the tough guy in cyberspace.
>>
>> > As to the founders, if you're going to continue to evoke them, you
>> > should be able to cite them. You obviously have some evidence in
>> > mind that would show how, where and why their principles for this
>> > nation's laws were violated in the conduct of the War on Terror.
>>
>> Habeas corpus not ring a bell?
>
> Ex parte Quirin.
Old law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
>> How about the President being above the law?
>
> Now you sound like a mindless drone. Stop it, it's not becoming.
>
> Get yourself some history and context.
Keep weaselin'
>> > Please present it now, or retract your silly, unspecified
>> > indictments.
>> >
>> > For instance, it might interest you to learn that Thomas Jefferson
>> > was the first US President to illegally commence a war against
>> > Islamic Terrorists.
>>
>> Jefferson had the authorization of Congress in 1801.
>
> Not when he began the war.
>
> Remember, he sent the fleet over the horizon without telling Congress
> the truth. In those days, believe it or not, they didn't have the
> internet or cell phones or anything! Those captains were sent into war
> before Congress was informed. There was no recalling them at that
> point.
>
> Which Jefferson, the rascal, knew very well.
Bad Jefferson! Bad Jefferson!
(So what?)
<snip/>
>> > If you hold a different definition, that's your problem, but it's
>> > not mine. It's only my problem when it becomes law.
>>
>> It is law. The law passed to comply with our joining the Convention
>> Against Torture.
>
> The relevant definitions from Title 18 are presented above.
You'll have to keep weaselin' for Title 18 not to apply.
>> > It's illegal for anyone to use waterboarding or other harsh
>> > interrogation techniques against soldiers captured in uniform, or
>> > against civilians. Under all circumstances.
>> >
>> > The famous "only give them your name, rank and serial number,"
>> > adage is based on the Conventions.
>> >
>> > There are situational differences involved. And differences are
>> > crucial.
>> >
>> > Besides, the Japanese in question weren't just waterboarding.
>> > You're conflating--or you're asserting a fallacy of the biased
>> > sample.
>>
>> Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted if all they'd
>> have done is waterboard?
>>
>> Noted.
>
> I'm not speculating. The fact is they didn't "just" waterboard.
I'll ask again: Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted
if all they'd have done is waterboard?
They certainly did more than waterboard, but waterboarding was cited as
torture.
>> >> > He knows
>> >> > that some of these interrogations yielded actionable
>> >> > intelligence that saved America from some deadly attacks,
>> >>
>> >> He may know this. �But you don't.
>> >
>> > Nor do you.
>>
>> You're the one making the claim.
>
> Actually, it's a case of "Well, /he/ said..."
>>
>> > Well, /he/ said...
>> >
>> >> In fact, some military interrogators have stated the opposite.
>> >
>> > Please cite your evidence. I'd be very interested in the precise
>> > nature of their statements.
>>
>> Google "torture doesn't work"; pick your way through the results.
>
> Google isn't a cite.
<shrug>
Don't look if it makes you feel better.
</shrug>
Look, I understand that you're scared of the jihadis, and you're
desperate to justify the extra-legal and incompetent work of the WPE no
matter how much weaselin' it takes. But none of your invented excuses
and close parsing of the definition of torture provide any useful
"context" or valuable "history" for Holder's decision to try KSM.
No matter how bad Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Leahy were.
And even if the Allies lost World War II.
Neolibertarian
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
His authority isn't in question.
His actions leading to these particular prosecutions, the methods
established for them and the wisdom of such are what's in question.
>
> <snipped: Patick Leahy is bad/>
> <snipped: four members of Congress briefed on interrogations are bad/>
>
> One of the nice things about not being an ideologue is that I feel no
> obligation to support people based on party labels.
Welcome to the club.
However, not being a partisan ideologue doesn't mean not being vested in
these issues and questions.
I am, and I very much have a stake in the United States of America, this
war, and the future of both.
> Whether Patrick
> Leahy wanted to strenghten the so-called Patriot Act or whether any
> members of Congress approved of illegal interrogations can hardly make
> any diffeence to an argument about Eric Holder's decision to try
> terrorists in civilian courts.
I'm merely responding to your point. You wrote:
"It takes courage for an Attorney General to uphold the rule of law?
Only by the standards set by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, maybe."
Not being a partisan ideologue, you shouldn't become trapped by or
further such partisan ideology so easily.
Your original point DIDN'T concern Holder's place in the equation, but
Ashcroft's and Gonzales'. Your not-so-veiled implication was that they
acted outside of or contrary to the law.
They didn't. All of their actions were lawful, and they went to
extraordinary lengths with all due diligence in order to see these
actions remained within the law. Congress was consulted at every step.
There was oversight at every step. With no intent to hide or deceive,
the case that they were acting "outside the law" runs rather thin. It
stands to reason that if they /were/ breaking the law, so were a great
many officials in more than one branch of the US government.
The so-called "illegal" NSA wire taps were a provision advocated by one
of their (subsequently) harshest critics. You see, the only way for
electronic surveillance to "follow a suspect from phone to phone" would
be to target called phone numbers. Now, instead of tapping a suspect's
own phone, you're tapping any phone that connects with a targeted phone
number. This might include American citizens who happened to call that
number. This was met with crocodile outrage by the partisan ideologues
you profess not to equate yourself with.
The so-called "illegal torture" was conducted with the full knowledge
and approval (both tacit and explicit) of Congress. Again, with no
effort to deceive, intent to break the law has no basis. With a lack of
intent, the question devolves to a mere technicality.
Did they break the law, albeit without intent and despite due diligence?
The fact of the matter is the answer to that question is, at best,
uncertain. It may just be an indeterminate question in the long run.
Yet, you've asserted here again and again that you're certain.
Isn't this what's supposed to be so distasteful about ideologues? That
they're certain where no one else could reasonably be?
>
> > Of course, back then airplanes were falling out of the skies over
> > Washington and Congressional leaders were receiving packets of
> > weaponized anthrax in the mail all the time.
>
> When KSM was being tortured, neither of these things was happening.
>
> And so what?
The ground rules were established when they /were/ happening.
A mitigating factor, to say the least.
>
> > That aside, War Powers change the argument because, obviously, the
> > President is charged with prosecuting a war.
> >
> > War powers are rather broad, and have been throughout the history of
> > the United States.
>
> They do not extend to breaking the law. In any case, the WPE is out of
> office. What does his peculiar interpretation of his powers have to do
> with Eric Holder?
Nothing. Why do you ask?
>
> >> >> > The Administration conducted this war to the best of its
> >> >> > abilities,
> >> >>
> >> >> Sadly enough, this is true. �Just they way it conducted the rest
> >> >> of its responsibilities -- pathetically and to the best of its
> >> >> memebers' abilities.
> >> >
> >> > No administration could or has done much better--nor have
> >> > administrations done much better in war or other emergencies in the
> >> > past.
> >>
> >> This is manifestly false. The WPE's father fought the right country.
> >
> > Panama?
>
> Heh. Confronted with the task of arresting Noriega, his son would have
> invaded Peru.
Funny you should say that. You sound just like the ideologues out here
on Usenet who're convinced that the previous administration invaded the
wrong country.
You see, if in that situation the Dubya invaded Peru, this would put him
squarely in the mainstream of precedent here in the US.
For instance, when Santa Ana sacked the Alamo in Texas 1836, we invaded
California. When South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter in 1861, we invaded
Virginia. When Cuba supposedly blew up the Maine in 1898, we invaded the
Philippines. When we intercepted a German telegram to Mexico in 1917, we
invaded France. I've already explained what "Wrong-Way Roosevelt" did in
1942. So, it's no surprise when some Saudi Arabian ex-patriots, led by
an Egyptian ex-patriot, attacked Manhattan that we then invaded
Afghanistan.
And yes, Afghanistan WAS the wrong country.
> >
> >> So did HST
> >
> > Korea?
> >
> >> and FDR.
> >
> > Funny you should bring up the pimp in the wheelchair.
> >
> > Did you know he officially signed off on a "Germany First" policy
> > almost a full year before 12/7?
> >
> > Back then he was declaring to the American people that he "wanted none
> > of it," when referring to the War in Europe.
> >
> > Even so, he conducted a secret war against Germany that summer in the
> > Atlantic, explicitly attempting to goad Hitler into war.
> >
> > Then came the attack on Oahu, and what did he do? Why, he sent 10% of
> > America's military to the Pacific, and sent a double army...NOT to
> > attack the Germans, but to attack the FRENCH in North Africa!
> >
> > Please explain how this is fighting "the right country," again?
>
> Six months after the attack on Oahu, the US Navy won the Battle of
> Midway, defeating the French navy.
Which did next to nothing to advance the war against the Japanese.
Mostly because there were no resources available to defend the Aleutians
or the Philippines or New Guinea.
These resources were being hoarded for the massive invasion of North
Africa. Obviously, Roosevelt had become a pawn of Grumman, Winchester,
GM, DuPont and the Neo-Deal Jews in his administration.
"The Hunt for Tojo" would fall by the wayside, as Wrong-Way Roosevelt
became obsessed with Prescott Bush's sugar daddy.
>
> Did I say the French navy? I might have that one wrong.
The French bombed Pearl Harbor, right? Or, at least, there HAD to be
connections between Saddam Petain and Admiral Osama Yamamoto--right?
Otherwise, we might be forced to believe Roosevelt "lied us into war."
That he, in fact, invaded the wrong country.
>
> >> > These bring out the worst and the best in all of us, I'm afraid.
> >> > Even for the sterling critics of the War on Terror.
> >>
> >> No war is free from error, but as you'll recall we won World War II,
> >> and modern Europe is the result.
> >
> > I recall that we did not win World War II.
>
> Oh, that's right. The Axis Powers won.
Defeating three fascist regimes did not win that war. The record is
rather clear in this regard.
America could not demobilize again for half a century. The Constitution
became battered and bent all out of shape in the process.
100,000 Americans would yet have to die.
>
> Wait. I might have got that wrong as well.
>
> > We immediately found ourselves fighting a Cold War
>
> Which we also won.
50 years later. Kicking and screaming all the way. Yeah, we won.
Well, except that only one of the three players dropped out of the game.
And we're not really sure that player dropped out completely.
>
> <snip/>
>
> >>
> >> >> > and justified all of its actions in
> >> >> > accordance with legal precedence and the Constitution of the
> >> >> > United States
> >> >>
> >> >> Hardly. �They tortured people, which is against US law and US
> >> >> treaty obligations.
> >> >
> >> > First of all, no torture occurred. It fails all four points of the
> >> > definition. It's true that waterboarding comes close to threatening
> >> > a subject with imminent death. But only close to the threshold. It
> >> > certainly doesn't cross it...on purpose.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but the defintion of torturers is not the legal one. Here's
> >> the definition from Convention against Torture, to which we are a
> >> signatory:
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> ... [T]he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or
> >> suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on
> >> a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
> >> information or a confession.... </quote>
> >
> > That's a deliberately vague definition, of course.
>
> Only if you're perverse.
No, in fact, it's a deliberately vague definition.
> >
> > No severe physical pain is involved in waterboarding.
>
> Sure. Easy to say when you're dry.
>
> > Severe mental pain is a subjective value judgement.
>
> No amount of weasel-words is gonna change the facts.
Subjective judgements are facts, of a sort. Sure.
But hardly useful here.
> > Frowning at a detainee or speaking harshly might qualify.
>
> I've been frowned at before. No pain at all.
> >
> > Or might not.
> >
> > US Federal Law is far more clear:
> >
> > (1) �torture� means an act committed by a person acting under the
> > color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
> > mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
> > lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
> > control;
> >
> > (2) �severe mental pain or suffering� means the prolonged mental harm
> > caused by or resulting from�
> >
> > (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
> > physical pain or suffering;
> >
> > (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
> > application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures
> > calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
> >
> > (C) the threat of imminent death; or
> >
> > (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
> > death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
> > application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
> > to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality
> >
> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
>
> Pretty much reflects the Convention. Thanks.
No, it /interprets/ the Convention, and it needs to do so since the
Convention's definition is intentionally vague.
Title 18 shows that waterboarding fails the definition by the provisions
of (A), (B), and (D).
Threat of imminent death is the only category in question. Resolving
that question is not the "clear cut" proposition you claim.
>
> > We routinely waterboard all of our own combat pilots. None of them
> > report having liked being waterboarded. It's at best a gray area.
> >
> > Certainly not as clear cut as you wish to make out.
>
> It was pretty clear cut when we tried Japanese commanders after World War
> II.
It wasn't "clear."
Look, you're not going to find flawless consistency in any system of
laws (these laws were made by man, after all). Your implication is that
you should and can. But you can't.
There are laws regarding murder that make killing a pregnant woman a
double homicide. There are also laws that protect individuals from
homicide charges for killing a woman's unborn child.
Which is it? Is killing an unborn child homicide or not?
One thing we can be assured of: you won't be able to prove your case one
way or another by merely pointing to one case.
For this to be a fruitful discussion, we must stick to the relevant laws
at hand. Waterboarding, for the Japanese in question, was the least of
the charges they faced. The way they waterboarded was in some ways much
different than the CIA interrogators at Gitmo. Japanese prisoners were
NOT otherwise well treated. Their prisoners faced far worse horrors than
mere waterboarding. Their prisoners died under interrogation as a matter
of routine.
These things cannot be credibly equated to the conditions and policies
at Guantanmo Naval Base, or even the Bagram Prison facility in
Afghanistan. On the other paw, we can't be so sure of the black prisons
operated by the CIA--but these are not part of the discussion.
You're attempting to claim clarity where there is none.
If I didn't know better, I'd suspect you were an ideologue.
>
> > Any President who, duly granted war powers by Congress, WOULDN'T step
> > into a gray area that could likely provide vital intelligence in the
> > prosecution of that war, would be malfeasant of his duties.
>
> Of course, it didn't provide "vital intelligence," and likely wouldn't.
You don't have any evidence one way or the other.
We both have "Well, /he/ said..."
Which proves nothing.
However, we also have our reason. Logic leads us to believe that some of
these detainees in fact held vital information about their colleagues.
We know that some of these colleagues were, in fact, calling for more
attacks on American soil and even more immediately, attacks on American
military and civilian targets in Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. In the later
case, these attacks were occurring on an ongoing basis, which makes any
intelligence that might prevent these attacks quite valuable and
necessary to obtain.
Of high military value.
Some of these detainees had sworn blood oaths to their commanders, whom
they likely wouldn't betray under normal circumstance.
If these are the known facts, your confident statement rings rather a
false note.
> But what the hell, if the WPE could prove the ends of coercing a
> confession that Iraq was tied to 9/11, then it would justify the means,
> eh?
There is nothing more pragmatic than war, my friend. Believe it or not,
it even involves killing people.
The idea is to win it before it destroys you.
The Conventions are a mere matter of form for already existing
agreements, at any rate.
During WWI, no one had to "outlaw" saw-tooth bayonets. The soldiers did
that, themselves. They didn't even need a treaty. And they policed it
themselves.
Waterboarding, if it were so obviously torture, would automatically make
every SERE trainer in the US Air Force a criminal.
We're prepared for our soldiers to be waterboarded in war. That's why
we're prepared to use it when we deem necessary.
Right or wrong, in the usual sense, doesn't even enter into it. Not in
the case of the saw-tooth bayonets, not in the case of waterboarding.
> >> After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese officers for exactly this
> >> torture practiced against US personnel.
> >
> > Not exactly. And you're conflating waterboarding into a whole
> > smorgasbord of officially recognized torture practices.
>
> Keep weaseling. It won't change the facts.
That's all you got?
>
> >> > Second, you can't cite relevant US case law which applies to
> >> > unlawful enemy combatants. On the other paw, the Eisentrager
> >> > decision is rather clear in this regard--it's certainly legal for
> >> > the US military to detain unlawful enemy combatants overseas
> >> > without legal protections or permitting recourse.
> >>
> >> The Convention Against Torture applies to anyone in the custody of
> >> the state. It is certainly legal to detain unlawful enemy combatants
> >> overseas (or lawful enemy combatants, for that matter), but once they
> >> are within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, some things change.
> >
> > Which is why the Eisentrager decision was handed down the way it was.
> >
> > It would be stupid to bring these detainees to the United States, for
> > instance.
>
> Well, blame that "blunder" on the WPE.
President Dubya didn't bring them to the US to be tried in civil courts.
It was his intention to try some detainees by military tribunal. For
this he had every legal and historical precedent one could imagine.
>
> >> > Third, unlawful enemy combatants are purposely not included within
> >> > the definitions of the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore not
> >> > protected. Loosely organized terrorists and anarchists operating
> >> > clandestinely across international borders cannot be afforded
> >> > protections by any society interested in its own survival.
> >>
> >> Unlawful enemy combatants do not gain some of the protections
> >> afforded to lawful enemy combatants. For instance, unlawful enemy
> >> combatants may be called before a criminal court for their
> >> participation in war; lawful enemy combatants may not. Unlawful
> >> enemy combatants still may not be abused.
> >
> > According only to the treaty on torture. Which is vague and largely
> > undefined. This is on purpose, of course, or they'd never get a large
> > number of countries to sign it in the first place.
>
> Keep weaselin'.
If you're not up to the argument, we can rest for a while and let you
catch your breath.
> >
> >> > These unasked for, unearned and undeserved protections especially
> >> > must not be granted to these organizations' members who've have
> >> > proved competent enough to murder 3,000 people in a single morning.
> >>
> >> Your opinion is noted. It's not what the Supreme Court has ruled.
> >
> > The Supreme Court isn't the final authority they imagine themselves to
> > be.
>
> They are for matter of US law.
Never in the history of the United States has a foreign enemy combatant
been brought to the US to be tried under domestic US statutes.
Even the Noriega case provides no precedent here.
US Law has no jurisdiction in such a case, except under Congressional
War Powers, and under those War Powers, the previously unbroken
precedent for the last two centuries is for enemy combatants to be tried
by military tribunal.
Believe it or not, there's very good reasons for this.
>
> > According to the Supreme Court, Americans of African descent could
> > never be citizens of the United States (Dred Scot), it decided that an
> > entire ethnic population could be herded into concentration camps
> > (Korematsu), that blacks should be kept from using the same restrooms
> > as whites (Plessy v. Ferguson), etc., etc., blech.
>
> The Supreme Court isn't always right from a societal point of view, but
> it's always the arbiter of what the law is.
>
Law is to be made by the legislative branch. The Supreme Court's role as
arbiter has been constructed from thin air.
We can accept their conjured role as a fait accompli, but as final
authority of law, they stink on ice.
For instance, Justice Kennedy based his ruling on bald faced lies in
Boumediene v Bush.
He's hardly the first justice to do so.
>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> >> They refused habeas corpus to a US citizen, which the
> >> >> Supreme Court ruled was illegal. �They set up military tribunals
> >> >> to try Gitmo detainees, which the Supreme Court ruled were
> >> >> illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >> And lying us into war and then lying about it? �At least there's
> >> >> precedent for that.
> >> >
> >> > No one lied you into war, Princess.
> >>
> >> > Why on earth would you believe you were?
> >>
> >> WMDs ring a bell? Aluminum tubes? Yellowcake from Niger? Saddam
> >> and 9/11? Nothing? You bought it all?
> >
> > No lies in the whole bunch, I'm afraid.
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Again, I caution you, you have no history. You seem to have been
spoon-fed your information from partisan ideologues and hacks.
It's ultimately up to you to do something about that.
>
> > Are you, or do you know of anyone who has asserted that Saddam Hussein
> > was NOT in material breach of UNSCR 687 or 1441?
> >
> > I can assure you that he was perpetually in material breach of those
> > resolutions for their entire existence. The UN and ISG have done
> > nothing but further substantiate this simple fact since 2003.
>
> And none of those breaches would have persuaded Congress to grant war
> powers to the WPE.
Congress authorized Operation: Iraqi Freedom in August of 1998, of
course. The Iraq Liberation Act had never been rescinded and was still
current during the Dubya's administration.
The decision to go to war against Iraq was never solely based on the
flawed 2002 NIE. Responsibility for that flawed NIE rests solely on the
shoulders of CIA, if that really matters in the long run. As George
Tenet clearly explains in his book, At the Center of the Storm:
"Because of the impending vote on the use of force, scheduled for early
October, a production process that normally stretched for six to ten
months had to be truncated to less than three weeks.
[...]
"Because of the time pressures, analysts lifted large chunks of other
recently published papers and repeated them in the Estimate. Twelve
previous intelligence community publications formed the spine of the
NIE.
[...]
"Had we started the process sooner, I am confident we could have done a
better job highlighting what we did and didn't know about Saddam's WMD
programs, and we could have sorted out some of the inconsistencies in
the document.
[...]
"Some observers have gone so far to suggest that our Iraq NIE is
evidence that senior members of the intelligence community, like some
superior policy makers, were hell-bent on war. The truth is just the
opposite."
� ---George Tenet, At the Center of the Storm
� � � HarperCollins Press (2007) pp 323-324
Tenet goes on to explain that Bob Walpole, the CIA officer in charge of
managing the NIE, is a "Mormon Bishop who drives a motorcycle to work."
He came to Tenet and confided "I just don't believe in this war." Tenet
told him his personal feelings couldn't interfere with his duty--which
was to provide the decision makers with all the best information they
could.
Which they did.
Not that that matters much, either.
The fact remains that Saddam Hussein was in substantial material breach
of UNSCR 687 and 1441. He had never been in compliance. He never, at any
time in 11 years, indicated in any way that he planned to come into
compliance.
It was his plan to retain all his prewar WMD capabilities, which he did.
According to Scott Ritter in 1998, and again substantiated by the ISG in
2004, Saddam Hussein always planned to reconstitute all capabilities at
the earliest possible date after sanctions were lifted. In some cases
this would mean a matter of months.
=begin quote==
SEN. MCCAIN: And that's what's disturbing to so many of us. Seven months
ago, the secretary of State threatened force if these inspections
weren't allowed to be completed. And now apparently from what you and
other evidence that we have, is the secretary of State is arguing
against the completion of the inspections.
I'd like to get back just for a second to the gravity of this situation.
Do you believe that Saddam Hussein today has three nuclear weapons
assembled -- lacking only the fissile material?
RITTER: The Special Commission has intelligence information, which
indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist,
lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: So that means to you that in what period of time, if these
inspections cease, that Saddam Hussein will have that nuclear
capability?
RITTER: It's a question of how he chooses to acquire enriched uranium,
either through indigenous enrichment or through procurement from abroad.
If it's indigenous, it would take some time because the IAEA has
effectively dismantled the internal enrichment -- but they have not
dismantled the weaponization program per se.
SEN. MCCAIN: So what period of time are you talking about, roughly?
RITTER: For a total reconstruction, it would be a period of several
years to reconstruct enrichment capability. Yes, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: And the biological and chemical?
RITTER: That's a much less time frame. I believe within a period of six
months Iraq could reconstitute its biological-weapons and
chemical-weapons capability.
SEN. MCCAIN: And the missiles to deliver them?
RITTER: Within a period of six months. We know in fact that Iraq has a
plan to have a breakout scenario for reconstitution of long-range
ballistic missiles within six months of the "go" signal from the
president of Iraq.
SEN. MCCAIN: So it is your opinion that if these inspections are further
emasculated, then within a six-month period of time, Saddam Hussein
would have the capability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction?
RITTER: Yes, sir.
==end quote==
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htm
Of course, Major Ritter would later become the darling of the tv
talk-show circuit when, deep in the throes of a severe case of amnesia,
he began claiming that there was never a reason to think the UNSCOM
inspections hadn't been completely effective. He seemed to be genuinely
surprised and suspicious of people who later claimed Iraq had retained
or reconstituted Weapons of Mass destruction; That Saddam was attempting
to defeat the inspections teams.
It was Ritter who led the "Give the Sanctions a chance to work" crowd.
> Which is why he needed the lies you still can't see.
> Would it make you feel better to call them "fudging the truth a bit"?
Only if it were accurate to do so.
There was no "fudged" truth involved. There were inaccuracies,
certainly. But that was expected.
The case for war did not hinge on these. That's the wild
mischaracterization that's been perpetuated by partisan ideologues and
hacks.
Only someone without history would fall for such an obvious
mischaracterization.
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> > The case for OIF wasn't shaky in the least. The necessity for an
> >> > invasion of Iraq was made manifest by the 9/11 Attacks. How could
> >> > it be any more clear?
> >>
> >> There could have been the actual involvement of Iraq in the attack,
> >> for instance.
> >
> > That's just plain silliness. You sound like the blithering idiots
> > across the pond in Parliament.
> >
> > Iraq's possible involvement in the planning and execution of the 9/11
> > attacks would have only made it clearer to the unwashed masses,
> > perhaps. Which is why they were looked into, certainly. And why they
> > were speculated about.
>
> Would have. But couldn't.
> >
> > Completely unnecessary to the casus belli for OIF, of course.
>
> Without the claim of 9/11 connection and the claim of imminent threat,
> there would have been no war.
There already was a current Iraq war resolution extant before the second
one was enacted in October of 2002.
In no substantial way did either hinge on particular intelligence data
which may have later proved inaccurate.
It's patently ridiculous and ignorant to continue claiming that they did.
>
> >> > Again, you don't have any history, facts or context. So, naturally
> >> > enough, you believe you were lied into the war. Perhaps because of
> >> > something you thought you heard?
> >>
> >> I wasn't hearing things, as most people heard the same: Saddam helped
> >> execute 9/11, and he was an imminent threat since he had weapons of
> >> mass destruction, nuclear, biological, and chemical.
> >
> > There was never an official claim that Saddam "helped execute 9/11."
>
> Keep weaselin'.
Really, we can take a breather. You're obviously running out of energy.
>
> > Powell's speech to the UN delineated Saddam Hussein's role as a
> > sponsor of transnational Islamic Terrorist groups and the long list of
> > deceptions enacted by Iraqi officials against the UN inspections
> > regime. While some of the details later proved to be incorrect,
>
> Damn! I hate it when crucial parts of my arguments (er, "details")
> "prove to be incorrect." Don't you?
The particular intelligence wasn't crucial. That's just partisan hack
hindsight. A biased sample fallacy.
>
> > case Powell made has been shown to be essentially correct. In fact,
> > Hussein's role in the support of international jihad groups (which
> > constitute further material breaches of the cease fire resolution)
> > proved to be completely understated.
>
> If by "essentially correct," you mean "mostly wrong." Those mobile labs,
> for instance.
By essentially correct, I believe I meant "essentially correct."
in all cases the WMD production capabilities had been retained by Iraq.
The errors were only in the assumptions that they had been
reconstituted. In hindsight, since the march to war in Iraq was so
exceedingly public and exceedingly slow, it would be a surprise were any
stockpiles found.
If a cop knocks on a drug dealer's door for hours and hours and hours,
announcing loudly that he will break the door down within a certain time
frame...well, we wouldn't be particularly curious about the flushing
sounds coming from within, would we? Nor could we be particularly
surprised when, after the door is finally broken down and the apartment
searched, that no drugs are to be found.
But let's not get started down that road. Let's stay with the facts at
hand.
In fact, Saddam's involvement with transnational Islamic Jihad terrorist
groups turned out to be grossly understated in the lead up to the war.
This involvement was proscribed in the same resolutions which proscribed
certain weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's involvement also
underscored his role in the War on Terror.
>
> >> >> In other words, they were cowards, too scared
> >> >> for their political futures to do the right thing.
> >> >
> >> > They demonstrably did the right thing according to the situation
> >> > and the information available to them. At least in the cases which
> >> > you think you're referring.
> >>
> >> Your opinion is noted.
> >>
> >> >> But that said, neither did they think they were authorizing
> >> >> illegal acts.
> >> >
> >> > They weren't.
> >>
> >> Not what the WPE claimed.
> >
> > Please cite.
>
> Look up the Bybee memo.
Asking about legalities of contemplated procedures is the sign of a
responsible public official, you hysterical loon. Would you have them
NOT asking for legal opinions?
>
> <snip/>
>
> >>
> >> > The fact of the matter is, a terrorist can only terrorize those who
> >> > can't fight back.
> >>
> >> I hope you're not relying on your powers of reason.
> >
> > well that...and the logic of steel.
>
> Bwahahahahahahaha. Thanks for the levity.
Welcome.
>
> >> >> These organizations are scary. �But
> >> >> suck it up and try to be worthy of the system that our founders
> >> >> left us.
> >> >
> >> > The organizations aren't scary; they're dangerous. There's a
> >> > difference.
> >>
> >> Well, things I know to be dangerous scare me. YMMV.
> >
> > Being scared is an unnecessary distraction. It can mess with your aim.
>
> Anyone can play the tough guy in cyberspace.
Duh.
>
> >>
> >> > As to the founders, if you're going to continue to evoke them, you
> >> > should be able to cite them. You obviously have some evidence in
> >> > mind that would show how, where and why their principles for this
> >> > nation's laws were violated in the conduct of the War on Terror.
> >>
> >> Habeas corpus not ring a bell?
> >
> > Ex parte Quirin.
>
> Old law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Is bad law.
Perhaps Ex parte Quirin is too.
Where does that leave us?
At the mercy of the Supreme Court?
What's wrong with this picture?
>
> >> How about the President being above the law?
> >
> > Now you sound like a mindless drone. Stop it, it's not becoming.
> >
> > Get yourself some history and context.
>
> Keep weaselin'
>
> >> > Please present it now, or retract your silly, unspecified
> >> > indictments.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, it might interest you to learn that Thomas Jefferson
> >> > was the first US President to illegally commence a war against
> >> > Islamic Terrorists.
> >>
> >> Jefferson had the authorization of Congress in 1801.
> >
> > Not when he began the war.
> >
> > Remember, he sent the fleet over the horizon without telling Congress
> > the truth. In those days, believe it or not, they didn't have the
> > internet or cell phones or anything! Those captains were sent into war
> > before Congress was informed. There was no recalling them at that
> > point.
> >
> > Which Jefferson, the rascal, knew very well.
>
> Bad Jefferson! Bad Jefferson!
>
> (So what?)
So, Jefferson was in violation of the Constitution for his war, and in
the same exact criteria, the Dubya was not.
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> > If you hold a different definition, that's your problem, but it's
> >> > not mine. It's only my problem when it becomes law.
> >>
> >> It is law. The law passed to comply with our joining the Convention
> >> Against Torture.
> >
> > The relevant definitions from Title 18 are presented above.
>
> You'll have to keep weaselin' for Title 18 not to apply.
I brought Title 18 into the argument, if you'll recall correctly.
I stand by my analysis of it in regards to torture.
>
> >> > It's illegal for anyone to use waterboarding or other harsh
> >> > interrogation techniques against soldiers captured in uniform, or
> >> > against civilians. Under all circumstances.
> >> >
> >> > The famous "only give them your name, rank and serial number,"
> >> > adage is based on the Conventions.
> >> >
> >> > There are situational differences involved. And differences are
> >> > crucial.
> >> >
> >> > Besides, the Japanese in question weren't just waterboarding.
> >> > You're conflating--or you're asserting a fallacy of the biased
> >> > sample.
> >>
> >> Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted if all they'd
> >> have done is waterboard?
> >>
> >> Noted.
> >
> > I'm not speculating. The fact is they didn't "just" waterboard.
>
> I'll ask again: Oh, so you think the Japanses would have been acquitted
> if all they'd have done is waterboard?
>
> They certainly did more than waterboard, but waterboarding was cited as
> torture.
Yes.
You've failed to show that the procedures are similar enough to prove
your point. Restraint, water and mouth coverings were used in both
instances, but the similarities stop there.
Victims were reportedly also beaten by Japanese interrogators during
their version of waterboarding. In addition their procedure left the
victim's stomach distended from excessive water ingestion.
In this way, the Japanese procedure is much closer to the Spanish Water
Torture used during the Inquisition than to the reported procedures used
at Guantanamo Bay.
>
> >> >> > He knows
> >> >> > that some of these interrogations yielded actionable
> >> >> > intelligence that saved America from some deadly attacks,
> >> >>
> >> >> He may know this. �But you don't.
> >> >
> >> > Nor do you.
> >>
> >> You're the one making the claim.
> >
> > Actually, it's a case of "Well, /he/ said..."
> >>
> >> > Well, /he/ said...
> >> >
> >> >> In fact, some military interrogators have stated the opposite.
> >> >
> >> > Please cite your evidence. I'd be very interested in the precise
> >> > nature of their statements.
> >>
> >> Google "torture doesn't work"; pick your way through the results.
> >
> > Google isn't a cite.
>
> <shrug>
> Don't look if it makes you feel better.
That's not how this works, dummy.
You make an assertion, you need to be prepared to provide evidence.
Don't blame me, I didn't make up the rules.
We'll let you rest.
You're obviously exhausted. When you feel better, we can get back to the
discussion.
Deadrat
news:85d3c$4b0dd598$18f55223$23...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <042dndwRovvU7JDW...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bf293$4b0cda35$18f55223$30...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
<snip/>
> These resources were being hoarded for the massive invasion of North
> Africa. Obviously, Roosevelt had become a pawn of Grumman, Winchester,
> GM, DuPont and the Neo-Deal Jews in his administration.
Sure. Franklin Roosenfeld and the Jews. Of course. Er, ...
.. my goodness, is that the time? I really have to be going. Subsequent
appointment I'm afraid.
<plonk/>