ABC News Outs Interrogation Psychiatrists

[DC Tom]

You actually should be applauding Obama for not wanting to prosecute. He's breaking the law himself by not doing it, and it's abundantly clear that he himself doesn't want to. He says it every chance he gets and he chooses words like "mistake" expressly to avoid any kind of legal action.

 

He's going to do what he should be doing, leaving it up to the justice department. But it's very very clear that if it were up to him, he would not be prosecuting. It is, however, illegal to torture, and it's illegal to know about torture and not do anything about it. And waterboarding has always been known as torture, and there are numerous cases going back 100 years saying so. Again, I personally think we should just look the other way even though it was against the law.

 

No, actually it wasn't against the law. It is NOW...since 2007, when Congress amended Title 18 clarifying the issue. Until then, it was the result of a policy decision by the Bush Administration w/r/t non-binding international conventions on torture to the effect that "They don't apply in this case." Which, despite being a bull sh-- excuse for a policy decision (and the reason Title 18 was changed), was entirely legal at the time.

[GG]

He's going to do what he should be doing, leaving it up to the justice department. But it's very very clear that if it were up to him, he would not be prosecuting. It is, however, illegal to torture, and it's illegal to know about torture and not do anything about it. And waterboarding has always been known as torture, and there are numerous cases going back 100 years saying so. Again, I personally think we should just look the other way even though it was against the law.

 

If it was illegal, please cite the US law that backs your position.

[DC Tom]

If it was illegal, please cite the US law that backs your position.

 

Let's ask connor.

[Kelly the Dog]

No, actually it wasn't against the law. It is NOW...since 2007, when Congress amended Title 18 clarifying the issue. Until then, it was the result of a policy decision by the Bush Administration w/r/t non-binding international conventions on torture to the effect that "They don't apply in this case." Which, despite being a bull sh-- excuse for a policy decision (and the reason Title 18 was changed), was entirely legal at the time.

 

That's being argued everywhere and i would imagine you yourself would say that they can't really do what they did. Maybe I'm wrong and you would agree with it. It looks very much to me that they made that up after the fact. That is probably the one thing that needs to be investigated, but I am very wary of opening up that can of worms, too.

 

We can, and constitutional lawyers can, argue this back and forth. But as Jonathan Turley says (and he constantly berates Obama about this), "We actually have films of us torturing people…We have Bush officials that have said we have tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we have tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it. What is President Obama waiting for?"

[GG]

That's being argued everywhere and i would imagine you yourself would say that they can't really do what they did. Maybe I'm wrong and you would agree with it. It looks very much to me that they made that up after the fact. That is probably the one thing that needs to be investigated, but I am very wary of opening up that can of worms, too.

 

We can, and constitutional lawyers can, argue this back and forth. But as Jonathan Turley says (and he constantly berates Obama about this), "We actually have films of us torturing people…We have Bush officials that have said we have tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we have tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it. What is President Obama waiting for?"

 

No matter what you think about the actions, they were not illegal at the time.

[Kelly the Dog]

No matter what you think about the actions, they were not illegal at the time.

 

The Red Cross report last year said they were categorically against both American and International law. I am not a legal scholar and neither are you as far as I know.

 

Also, this seems quite applicable...

The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

 

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."

 

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3.

 

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that Common Article 3 doesn't cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes.

 

We have federal laws that criminalize torture.

 

The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

 

The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not, however, going to start telling reporters what they can or can't follow. I think reporters are some of the biggest scumbags, too, btw. I just don't think we can censor them.

Consider this LA Times article:

 

Los Angeles, CA - An ABC News journalist is being considered as apparently having sex with a 13-year-old girl. The person, Billy Cole (picture inset here), who resides at 937 Sunset Boulevard (photo of Billy Cole's residence here), says he has no comment on the crimes and no one has arrested him on what the Mayor of LA calls "despicable crimes against a minor".

 

According to an attorney with the American Uncivil Sodomy Union stated, "Billy Cole apparently sodomized this girl in a brutal fashion, though no one is bringing any charges against him at this time."

 

While chasing Billy Cole to his car (video link below), he was repeatedly asked by this LA Times reporter, "Did you !@#$ that little girl? Do you fear you will be charged with this crime?," to which Billy Cole, whose photo and address are listed here, did not comment.

 

Precisely what the hell do you think would happen to Billy Cole, regardless of the fact that he was apparently out of town when the "despicable crime" took place?

 

You're okay with that? Because if you think there's a difference, you're out of your mind.

 

Reporters are supposed to report what happened, not what they presume happened, even if they know it happened for a fact but can not divulge their source.

 

I know you want to defend Obama on this because apparently I'm not the only one who knows how this whole thing was set in motion, but you're missing the point of my original post. ABC News had no reason to run this story in the manner they did until such a time that these men are charged EXCEPT to further their careers and probably get a better seat during the next Obama Prime Time Press Conference Slowballpalooza.

[GG]

The Red Cross report last year said they were categorically against both American and International law. I am not a legal scholar and neither are you as far as I know.

 

AFAIK, the Red Cross are not US Constitutional scholars, either. If it's against the law, there is nothing stopping the Red Cross in filing a case in US or established international courts. They can only get a monkey spanish judge to attempt a kangaroo court. Which indicates that this likely falls out of legal boundaries, and precisely why the Bush admin's team crafted the program in the way they did. You may not like the tactics, but it doesn't make them slam dunk illegal.

[Kelly the Dog]

Consider this LA Times article:

 

 

 

Precisely what the hell do you think would happen to Billy Cole, regardless of the fact that he was apparently out of town when the "despicable crime" took place?

 

You're okay with that? Because if you think there's a difference, you're out of your mind.

 

Reporters are supposed to report what happened, not what they presume happened, even if they know it happened for a fact but can not divulge their source.

 

I know you want to defend Obama on this because apparently I'm not the only one who knows how this whole thing was set in motion, but you're missing the point of my original post. ABC News had no reason to run this story in the manner they did until such a time that these men are charged EXCEPT to further their careers and probably get a better seat during the next Obama Prime Time Press Conference Slowballpalooza.

 

I am not sticking up for scumbag reporters. For the most part, I hate reporters, too. I think they overstep their bounds all the time. I will criticize them all the time, I just won't tell them what they can and can't do. People B word at them for using names and not using names.

 

Actually, I don't really want to defend Obama on this. I think he is breaking the law. I think if he really believed in the rule of law, he would allow the investigations to take place and prosecutions if warranted. But I, like you, want him just to forget about the law this time because it will do more harm than good. But it's not right. He's getting hammered as much or more by the left on this than he is the right. Again, you should be applauding him for what he is doing.

 

The Obama administration, in case you havent been following this, doesn't want the press looking into this either. They wish it would all disappear tomorrow. The Congress is who is driving this. Obama wants to just let Bush go.

[Kelly the Dog]

AFAIK, the Red Cross are not US Constitutional scholars, either. If it's against the law, there is nothing stopping the Red Cross in filing a case in US or established international courts. They can only get a monkey spanish judge to attempt a kangaroo court. Which indicates that this likely falls out of legal boundaries, and precisely why the Bush admin's team crafted the program in the way they did. You may not like the tactics, but it doesn't make them slam dunk illegal.

 

I added more. Not sure if you saw that part. I guess it's possible that the Bush Administration sidestepped this enough, although pretty much every constitutional lawyer I have seen talk about it say there isn't even any question that this was torture and against US Law. Most of them, especially those on the left, are abusing Obama left and right on this issue.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Gee, I wonder who "outed" another CIA agent.

 

Skooter where were you on the night of .....

 

And we all know Cheney's been flapping his yap and now wants to come forward with his interrogation techniques!

[BillsNYC]

Is it just me, or is it a very bad idea to tick off the CIA?

[swede316]

Is it just me, or is it a very bad idea to tick off the CIA?

Umm yea...Kelly and Bills 4 Life should be worried If they quit posting..We know what happened.

[GG]

Gee, I wonder who "outed" another CIA agent.

 

Skooter where were you on the night of .....

 

And we all know Cheney's been flapping his yap and now wants to come forward with his interrogation techniques!

 

You should note that it wasn't Libby that outed Wilson's wife. But thanks for the contribution. Facts should matter little in any debate.

 

Recall the outrage over that outing?

[DC Tom]

That's being argued everywhere and i would imagine you yourself would say that they can't really do what they did. Maybe I'm wrong and you would agree with it. It looks very much to me that they made that up after the fact. That is probably the one thing that needs to be investigated, but I am very wary of opening up that can of worms, too.

 

We can, and constitutional lawyers can, argue this back and forth. But as Jonathan Turley says (and he constantly berates Obama about this), "We actually have films of us torturing people…We have Bush officials that have said we have tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we have tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it. What is President Obama waiting for?"

 

Do you want to argue that the torture was illegal, or merely wrong? Because those are two different things.

 

And that's precisely the reason torture was performed on foreign soil like Gitmo, by organizations like the CIA. Because while it may have been wrong, there was no statute in place that said it was illegal. (In fact, the 2007 law still potentially allows it...if it's not on American soil and the CIA contracts the actual torture out to foreign nationals.)

[RkFast]

I heard giving the subject the stink eye will soon be considered "torture."

[Kelly the Dog]

Do you want to argue that the torture was illegal, or merely wrong? Because those are two different things.

 

And that's precisely the reason torture was performed on foreign soil like Gitmo, by organizations like the CIA. Because while it may have been wrong, there was no statute in place that said it was illegal. (In fact, the 2007 law still potentially allows it...if it's not on American soil and the CIA contracts the actual torture out to foreign nationals.)

 

Again, I don't know, I am not a legal scholar. I have seen legal scholars argue this, and a lot of them say there is no question it was illegal, and some of them argue like you just did. If we're bound by US law to honor treaties we sign, and we break those treaties, isn't that illegal?

[RkFast]

Next up on the turture "ladder"....not saying "please."

[IDBillzFan]

You should note that it wasn't Libby that outed Wilson's wife. But thanks for the contribution. Facts should matter little in any debate.

 

Recall the outrage over that outing?

Not me. Are you saying people were outraged over the outing of Plame? I don't remember that at all. I remember it was very quiet at the time.

[DC Tom]

Again, I don't know, I am not a legal scholar. I have seen legal scholars argue this, and a lot of them say there is no question it was illegal, and some of them argue like you just did. If we're bound by US law to honor treaties we sign, and we break those treaties, isn't that illegal?

 

Not if they're non-binding, which the Convention on Torture is. If, on the other hand, the treaty is binding, then yes it would be...but then, there's legal ways around that too, like saying "The Geneva Convention doesn't grant these people status as POWs, so we're not bound by that either."

 

Again, not right. Not illegal, either. At least not necessarily...I could make the argument that, since the Constitution requires that Congress approve treaties, then such treaties become binding on the executive as a matter of US law even if the treaty itself is non-binding as an international matter. I think it's a bad argument (separation of powers issue - it arguably allows Congress the authority to specify to the executive branch how laws are enforced, which is theoretically a power strictly invested in the executive), and I don't think it would fly in many courts in the country (save the Ninth Circus), but I could make the argument.