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.

Candidate Obama and POTUS Obama are two very different people, just like every other POTUS before him.

Did anyone seriously think that Obama would allow an Ex POTUS to be prosecuted and open the door to the same treatment after he leaves office? Come on now, lets get back to reality. It's just not going to happen

support any decision he chose for the very reason you mentioned. There were plenty of military and FBI legal experts who disagreed with his decision.

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

...Obama would never leave himself open to prosecution after he leaves office.

The only way I can see this happening is if a state prosecutor just went ahead and did it. Vince Bugliosi lays out how this could be done in his book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

first guy BEFORE Yoo was asked to give a "legal opinion" as to whether it was "legal."  When your boss does something that is arguably criminal and then comes to you for an opinion as to "legality," what are you going to tell him?


       At the very least, Yoo should be sued for manufacturing his legal opinion (and he has been) and Yoo should  be held civilly accountable for the violation of the constitutional rights of the torturees.

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?

but Marikod, I will stand by my original statement to you, the one I made before Obama even won the election.

George W Bush is not going to be tried for "war crimes", not today, not ever. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.

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

why it won't happen is he has a defense.

There is a defense of good faith mistake of law. If some gets a legal opinion from a proper source and relies on it, that is a defense, even if it turns out to be wrong.

You may not like the person Bush relied on, but the fact remains is that was the source the president should rely on for that type of opinion.

He CANNOT get an opinion from a court, because the consititution prohibits federal courts from giving "advisiory opinions," as there is no "case or controversy," and hence no jurisdiction.

The only person any POTUS can rely on is White House counsel's office or the justice department.

Therefore,as much as you may rant against the person who advised him, this is a valid defense.

Also, mistaken belief in the need to defend others is at least a partial defense.

Jesus, I would love to handle that defense.

Rant and Rave. No way in hell.

You lose credibility when you lump Lyndie England and her cohorts together with legtimate interrogations.

Lyndie England and her cohorts were nothing more than guards. Their job was to guard prisoners, not interrogate them. What they did was abuse, plain and simple. Those pictures of men being laughed at, being made to form pyramids, wear underclothes on their heads, and other humiliating treatment were not pictures of interrogations. They were pictures of abuse. Surely you took note of the fact that Lyndie England was sent to prison didn't you? Along with several other soldiers who took part in the abuse?

By the way, what exactly is wrong in the picture you included? So his hands are tied and his feet are tied. Big deal. You think this is bad? In Iraq, metal beds were found with car batteries wired to them. What do you think Al Qaeda was doing? In an Al Qaeda compound that was raided, rooms were found that contained chains attatched to the walls, and every single surface was blood spattered. I'm pretty sure they weren't slaughtering pigs in those rooms, so what you do think was going on? And you cry because we tie someone up? Give me a break.

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

You can't pin this one on John.

END OF MESSAGE

He got legal advice from a legit source.  As you well know, it would be impossible to prove he went to that source for a pre-requested opinon.

There may be others who disagreed, but there is no legal requirement to get a unanamous agreement.  You get the opinion from a legit source, and you are home free.

(Do you really think a President has to refrain from acting until he gets 100% consensus on legal advice? That would be the basis for Hamlet on the Potomac.)

A landlord in a dispute goes to a landlord-tenant attorney who does mostly cases for landlords.

An injured worker gets an opinion from an attorney who handlses work comp cases for claimants.

There is nothing wrong with the attorney he went to.  There is no basis to assume anything improper.

Perfect defense.

(Although, my fav still is reasonable belief in need to defend others.  I seem to remember that about 3,000 Americans had been killed by a group that KSM may have had some connections with. I also remember about 1,000 newspapers, many with Democratic leanings like the L.A. Times, saying that another hit was inevitable and reporting that thousands of people had passed through terrorist training camps.  

Kind of hard to make a case that he should be overly cautious.  

Go on.  File charges. Make my day.

Phil, tell the officer you have a legal memorandum in your trunk from John Yoo that says he believes it is legal to drive 90 mph on Sunset Blvd and that you, being a big Yoo, fan, relied on that memo to drive 90 mph.

    Let me know if the officer asks to see  the " legal opinion from a proper source" or if he gives you a ticket.

Your fantasy is so farfeetched I don't even know where to begin.

The system is no where near broken badly enough for the American public to raise up and tear it apart, which is what it will take for there to be meaningful change.

As I grow older and start looking at the "brass ring" I already have, and as cashing in my chips becomes more of a reality, I find myself putting my effort into manipulating the system, a system I know and understand quite well, rather than than tilting at windmills in a futile effort to  try to replace the current system with something better.

We are about to enter into a period of high interest, high inflation, and more than likely higher taxes. What more could an oilman like me wish for? This enviroment is perfect for me to thrive in and when things appear to be at their worst and oil is upwards of $200 bbl, I will simply sell out to Wall St and buy my little tropical island, and enjoy "fucking little brown girls" for the rest of my selfish life.

What is more relevant is that President Bush, Vice-president Cheney, their bureaucrats, who never served their country, made it much more unsafe for our men and women serving oversea, for years to come. Our enemies will not always be just Al Qaeda, and our new enemies will use our new precedent for interrogation against us in their justification for how they treat our captured soldiers, sailors and airmen.

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.)

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.

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?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.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".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

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.

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.

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

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 .

END OF MESSAGE

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.

is over.

Maybe not by getting shot at, but they certainly "served their country".

Military service is far from the only way to serve your country. BTW I am a veteran myself, I just don't see that as a unique badge of honor, millions served before me, millions more after me. It doesn't make any of us better people for having done so. It just "is".

and I am the only one who is sick and fucking tired of hearing every swinging dick (and vagina) that enters the military being referred to as "heroes"? Military service doesn't make you a fucking hero. It doesn't make you a "baby killeer" like the soldiers of my time were referred to , but it doesn't make you a hero either.

"and I am the only one who is sick and fucking tired of hearing every swinging dick (and vagina) that enters the military being referred to as "heroes"? Military service doesn't make you a fucking hero."

Not aware of saying anything about making anyone a hero. Just know that when I was in the military, I never trusted politicians and bureaucrats to look out for my interests while serving and sacrificing for my country, doing much of their dirty work, while they were often using the system to rake in the cash and power, while using military personnel to do their dirty work for them, like Cheney. He sure made out like a bandit, didn't he? And, John Yoo, another bureaucrat. And, President Bush, in my book he whimped out on his military service, and if he really understood what it was like to serve, I'm doubting that he would have be so quick to get us into two extended wars at the same time.

Just saying!

"You think this is bad? In Iraq, metal beds were found with car batteries wired to them. What do you think Al Qaeda was doing?"

"It is called the so called civilized society stooping to a lower level then the barbarians called Al Queda and all other terrorist".