: Re: Generally is a nice word : Discussion in Politics and Religion, posted by dncphil

1,979,544 Total Reviews 3,504 New Reviews

7,709 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Tree
Flat

Re: Generally is a nice word

dncphil 16 Reviews 1989 reads

posted 14 years ago

But in a case that is about seven billion times sui generis, all bets on "generally" are off. To even talk about this case in "general" terms is meaningless.

The bottom line, in reality, is that there is no way in hell any responsible administration wants to have a trial for a former president of the United States in a trial that will take years and involve more classiified information that you can dream of.

If Bush were arrested today, it wouldn't go to trial for a decade. It is common for major felonies to take two or three years to get to trial. I can't even picture this one. This case would have fifty interim writs.

Hey, in two years, Obama can't even find a venue for KSM. That means in two years, the entire Justice Department can't even agree on which Clerk's Office to file the indictment. And he wants to try KSM.

The real life implications of trying a former Pres are too numerous to mention. Just out of curiousity, does a conviction for a crime deprive a former pres of all benefits? I doubt it. Does he still get a team of Secret Service agents in prison if convicted?

If he decides to push Obama and refuses to put up bail, and wants to be poster boy in jail, do you also jail 25 Secret Service agents to protect him before conviction? If he wants to play this to the hilt, it would be insane.

How do you even arrest him? Do the 6 Secret Service agents go in the same car? They couldn't even transport him, much less try him.
Let's get real.

BTW, I didn't look up any war crimes statutes. It is just such a silly pipe dream. (Law is also too, too boring to research unless I am getting paid.)

Posted By: marikod

too broadly. In fact, the general rule is the opposite -mistake of law is no defense to a criminal prosecution.

Where mistake of law is a defense is when the statute contains the word "willfully" in describing the prohibited conduct, as is true with respect to certain criminal tax offenses. Which is why the big boys are willing to pay big bucks for legal opinions that tax shelters are legal.

Now I bet you can't tell me whether that word is in the war crimes statute, can you?

lon85714 years ago4483 reads

W say he approved waterboarding

Went back to the beginning of Nov. and did Not see a post on W, did I miss it. Pres. Bush was on Oprah last week, said he approved water boarding as he wrote it in his new Book that he pushed it,not just went along. Saw a clip from the Rachel Maddow show where John Stewart says, W is technically a War Criminal. Reminds me of a recent film, "Ghost Writer". Right now the Military & Justice Dept. will prosecute anyone who is guilty of water boarding. Also, after WWII the US War Crimes Commission hanged Japanese & German who water boarded & sentenced others to long prison terms. Think about it.

Reply Quote Report

Timbow14 years ago1538 reads

It is a problem to get your legal analysis from John Stewart :)EOM

Posted By: lon857

-- Modified on 11/14/2010 2:29:40 PM

Reply Quote Report

anonymousfun14 years ago3357 reads

Timbow, which universe are you living in these days?

Bush wrote it in his book and he said so on an interview promoting his book.

You can't pin this one on John.

Posted By: Timbow

Posted By: lon857

-- Modified on 11/14/2010 2:29:40 PM

Reply Quote Report

Timbow14 years ago1381 reads

Re: Timbow, which universe are you living in these days?

Posted By: anonymousfun

Bush wrote it in his book and he said so on an interview promoting his book.

You can't pin this one on John.

Posted By: Timbow

Posted By: lon857

-- Modified on 11/14/2010 2:29:40 PM

You do not understand the law regarding specific intent. The specific intent of the CIA interrogators was to obtain information about plots in the works. That alone is not enough to support a finding of a specific intent to inflict severe pain.

The US under CAT specifically required that a specific intent be found to support a finding of torture.

-- Modified on 11/15/2010 5:49:02 PM

Reply Quote Report

jerseyflyer14 years ago1015 reads

Re: W say he approved waterboarding

It worked too, didn't it. KSM fessed up. He was not talking until that happened.

Reply Quote Report

Timbow14 years ago1177 reads

Re: W say he approved waterboarding

W said KSM said WB allowed him to waiver his vow to Isalm .
KSM said that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that point and allowed him to talk .

Reply Quote Report

willywonka4u14 years ago738 reads

"Legitimate interrogations" Bush style.

Reply Quote Report

BreakerMorant14 years ago1572 reads

Waterboarding is better than Airport pat-downs. You are

badly misinformed. Here is the deal, enemies are working everyday to cause harm to us. If waterboarding is necessary to obtain information to protect us from attack, then so be it. The Bush administration efforts were focused on finding and preventing attacks from Afghanistan to the Phillipines rather than waiting for the evil-doers to show up at a US airport. JerseyFlyer has right, because this methodology worked.

It's either waterboarding and aggressive rules of engagement or having to submit to ridiculous airport pat-downs. Secretary of Homeland Security NaplitalaNO is an idiot.

Related Link: Airport pat-downs

Reply Quote Report

willywonka4u14 years ago1808 reads

Why do you hate America, Breaker?

I can't believe anyone at this point would think torture is a lofty idea, but apparently there's still a few dim bulbs among us.

Posted By: BreakerMorant

Here is the deal, enemies are working everyday to cause harm to us.

A lot of people are working every day to harm us. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the US populace on who has caused more harm, terrorists, or bankers, then I'd bet terrorists wouldn't win out. Statistics will tell you that terrorists managed to kill 3,000 Americans one year, but alcohol consumption kills 150,000 every year. Should we waterboard banking and alcohol corporate executives?

Posted By: BreakerMorant

If waterboarding is necessary to obtain information to protect us from attack, then so be it.

The problem is that it doesn't give anyone any information. If an interrogator tortured you by smashing your toes with a claw hammer, you'd be willing to tell him that you were responsible for the destruction of the Hindenburg. Torture provides a metric shit ton of intelligence, all of which is nothing more than fiction, and is whatever the torture victim thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Numerous studies have demonstrated this. A far more useful tactic to gaining information is by inducing the Stockholm syndrome, which requires no torture (it impedes it), and does not violate national and international law.

Posted By: BreakerMorant

The Bush administration efforts were focused on finding and preventing attacks from Afghanistan to the Phillipines rather than waiting for the evil-doers to show up at a US airport.

The Bush administration efforts were focused on torture specifically because it would produce fictional terror plots, that they could then use to justify their activities. I'll ignore the utterly juvenile term "evil-doer".

Posted By: BreakerMorant

It's either waterboarding and aggressive rules of engagement or having to submit to ridiculous airport pat-downs.

No, I think metal detectors are a far better alternative. Here's an even better one: build a high speed national rail system. After all, you can't fly a train into a building.

Lastly, I'll say that the 8th amendment of the US Constitution states:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Note that there's no qualifiers there for this to apply only to US citizens. This protection applies to everyone. The Founders knew that a gov't that could torture it's "enemies" could also torture it's critics, or even it's citizens. Therefore, the support of torture is fundamentally UnAmerican, and demonstrates your hatred of the principles this country was founded upon.

Might I suggest you move to a nation whose principles are more in tune with your own, Breaker. I hear they still boil people alive in Uzbekistan.

-- Modified on 11/15/2010 8:09:13 PM

Reply Quote Report

BreakerMorant14 years ago1619 reads

Stick to the point. We were talking about the War on Terror

not about bankers or alcoholic consumption. We were discussing Waterboarding as a tactic to combat terrorism. I say hell ya.......waterboard, waterboard. Waterboarding is neither torture nor illegal, nor is the same as boiling people.

To combat terrorism you can either use law enforcement techniques which have proven ineffective or attack terrorism using military tactics. The choice is clear and the rules of engagement are different. In combat if the enemy is pointing a weapon at me or my buddies, I shoot to kill. I don't stop and yell to the enemy and inform them of their constitutional rights.

What you fail to understand in the safe confines of your cubicle is that we are at war. Wake up! While we are in the subject on the war on the Terrorism; how is President Obama doing in deactivating Guantanamo? Yea I thought so.

By the way I swore to protect and preserve the United States Constitution not Uzbekistan's.

Reply Quote Report

willywonka4u14 years ago981 reads

The "War on Terror" is over Breaker.

We've moved on to a military and diplomatic effort against terrorists.

Waterboarding isn't torture and isn't illegal? Is that why we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it?

As Israel has yet to realize, but their entire history demonstrates, using military tactics against terrorists is ineffective. The same was demonstrated in the UK's fight with the IRA.

Law enforcement and intelligence operations are marginally more effective, but as the UK/IRA situation demonstrated, a far more effective strategy is to use negotiation. This forces the terrorists to give up violence and move to resolving disputes politically.

In combat, if directly threatened you should shoot to kill. However, I doubt someone tied down to a board could literally or metaphorically point a gun at anyone.

If you swore to protect and preserve the US Constitution, then perhaps you shouldn't wipe your ass with it.