Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
SCOTUS decided that a nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime .

Speaking of courts the NY Slimes reported today that

Quote:

---

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/wa...16fisa.html?hp

Hello again,

Yesterday, our new Attorney General stated the obvious: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.. Having said that, how can he avoid prosecuting the present torturers?

I suppose they could say that the Justice Department gave them the green light, so they're clear.

But, wasn't the Justice Department stuffed with loyal Bushies contrary to law too? It WAS, and it was THOSE loyal Bush appointees who gave the OK.

Call me a conspiracy nut, but if it quacks like a duck...

Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.

That's something that ALL "law and order" people such as myself, instinctively KNOW. How come YOU don't know that?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Yesterday, our new Attorney General stated the obvious: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.. Having said that, how can he avoid prosecuting the present torturers?

excon

---

You make a good point, but law students learn early-on to distinguish their personal opinions from 'the law'. I don't expect 'our new attorney general' to start evangelizing any time soon, anyway. "That was not done with Marc Rich. Eric Holder short-circuited the process. He deliberately kept the Pardon Attorney out of the loop. He did not inform the lead prosecutor that a pardon for Marc Rich was underway.

"Unless Eric Holder was breathtakingly incompetent, he had to know what the charges were against Rich. It was not just tax evasion in the millions of dollars. It was also trading with the enemy. Rich broke the embargo that the US had officially established on oil being sold by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And lastly, Rich had fled the US to avoid prosecution. He was a fugitive from justice." Eric Holder: Crook. Liar, Attorney General

Of course murder is wrong, but in time of war, killing the enemy with guns and bombs don't get the soldiers tried for murder either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

You make a good point, but law students learn early-on to distinguish their personal opinions from 'the law'.

---

Hello again, George:

His torture statement WASN'T a opinion... His personal views AREN'T what these confirmation hearings are about...

Marc Rich?? Please stay focused. Or are you going to answer questions about Obama's foreign policy with complaints about Whitewater?

excon

Confirmation hearings are about views, opinions, hypotheticals, and politics. Seems Holder is carrying quite a bit of baggage for the sqeaky-clean Messiah: "In addition to the Rich matter, Specter can be counted on to follow up on a few other issues he raised on the Senate floor last week. Among them: Holder's involvement in former Attorney General Janet Reno's decision not to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that Al Gore was raising illegal campaign funds in 1996; the clemency Holder had supported for Puerto Rican militant group Armed Forces of National Liberation; and Holder's involvement in the investigations of the 1993 Waco siege and nuclear spying by the Chinese." 5 coming confirmation collisions - Daniel Libit - Politico.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Or are you gonna answer questions about Obama's foreign policy with complaints about Whitewater?

---

Hello again, George:

So you ARE going to bring up Whitewater every time Clinton's name is mentioned...

Okee doakee.

excon

Not me . I think the Republican Congress missed the boat on the real impeachable offenses of the Clintonistas... the transfer and selling of military technology to the Chicoms for political donations.


Like I said echoing Cheney... Obama is going to want to have the flexibility so he won't sic his Justice Dept. on the departing Bush administration .You know it is bad form and would plague his administration knowing the criminalization of politics is a 2 way street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

it is bad form and would plague his administration knowing the criminalization of politics is a 2 way street.

---

Hello tom:

We've had discussions before over the above semantics... I say, the politics were criminal in the first place- not the other way around. Given your definition, the Khmer Rouge just just made bad policy. It's ridiculous on it's face.

Besides, we've already crossed the first hurdle making your argument moot. Our chief law enforcement officer said what they DID is criminal. It's not just bad policy. I'm not making it up... really. You can't torture anybody no matter who you are.

excon

My expectation is that Congress has no stomach for this inquiry, and no prosecutor would want to take this position before a jury. I guess we'll see.

In theory I agree with you EX :

Win the heart and minds in Iraq by treating them well. Restore infrastructure, build hospitals and schools and places of worship etc. Of course we don't hear enough of that in the MSM. It was part of Petraeus' counterinsurgency and what happened in Anbar.


But if we "play by the rules" and take certain judiciously applied interrogation techniques off the table, is the outcome worse?

- it could take longer to get intel
- it could cost innocent lives because we can't get the intel or get it timely manner
- it could lengthen an already long war, since the enemy, who is willing to use any means necessary to defeat us, knows we will hesitate in trying to defeat them. Do you think the jihaddists will come around and think, " you know what, they are really changing their ways, we should hold off and talk about our differences and come to a mutually agreeable compromise"
- our we really better than we think we are? Sherman's march, American Indians, Dresden, slavery, Hiroshima / Nagasaki, Japanese internment - or were we really making judgements to bring about a goal?







G&P

Holder already told Orin Hatch in testimony that he isn't planning on going after Bush adm officials. He knows he will take down too many Democrats if he applied the same standards to Democrats. Beginning in 2002, Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were thoroughly, and repeatedly, briefed on the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs. They did nothing to stop such activities. If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to "torture" , then by their own logic they themselves are complicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to "torture" , then by their own logic they themselves are complicit.

---

Hello again, tom:

Well, it's a good thing Madam Pelosi isn't the one who makes the decision then, isn't it? Eric Holder is the one who'll do the investigating, thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

But if we "play by the rules" and take certain judiciously applied interrogation techniques off the table, is the outcome worse? - it could take longer to get intel - it could cost innocent lives because we can't get the intel or get it timely manner - it could lengthen an already long war,

---

Hello in:

You make the assumption that torture works, and that obeying the law doesn't.

I don't make those assumptions at all.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, it's a good thing Madam Pelosi isn't the one who makes the decision then, isn't it? Eric Holder is the one who'll do the investigating, thank you very much.Hello in:

You make the assumption that torture works, and that obeying the law doesn't.

I don't make those assumptions at all.

excon

---

If if he's all for not adhering to laws then what will govern our behavior? Nothing. What will govern the leaders of our country if they do not adhere to our laws? Nothing. If there is no check on power, then they have the power to do anything to anyone. Sound like some third world dictatorships to you?

We are great because of our laws limits those entrusted to govern for the people so the PEOPLE always govern. Those who break the laws should be held accountable.

Let's see where Holders interest lies. Playing Inspector Javert to Bush adm officials of going after potheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

If if he's all for not adhearing to laws then what will govern our behavior? Nothing. What will govern the leaders of our country if they do not adhere to our laws? Nothing. If there is no check on power, then they have the power to do anything to anyone. Sound like some third world dictatorships to you?

We are great because of our laws limits those entrusted to govern for the people so the PEOPLE always govern. Those who break the laws should be held accountable.

---

How about Rangel or Geithner?

Some may need laws to "govern" their behavior, most of us try to do what is right. ;)






G&P

This is what Madame Mimi Pelosi said this weekend :
"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," ...."And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Translation... anything that has my fingerprints on it is something best to ignore and look to the future rather than to the past.

Anthing that she or the Congressional Democrats are not complicit in is fair game for prosecution. Or other words ;the criminalization of politics .
You see this is how it works . When Stevens of Alaska gets into trouble immediate action is required. When cold cash Jefferson gets caught it takes a vote by the electorate to do the right thing. Still waiting for Charles Rangel to be held accountable.


Of course nothing can stop Conyers from holding Stalinist show hearings . But we are used to that ;that's what Dems do in lieu of responsible governance.. . They dragged baseball players into Congress while the economy was teetering . They'd love to keep this alive for another 2 years until the mid-term elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the criminalization of politics .

---

Hello again tom:

Hmmm. If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, the president couldn't violate a law even if he wanted to. Unless he got a blow job, of course.

You're in good company, however. Both the dufus AND Nixon think the president can't break the law... Poor fellows.

You'd LIKE it to be about politics. That's why you keep on using your well worn phrase above. But, finally, after eight LONG years, it's NOT about politics. It's about the law.

I don't know about you law and order folks anymore. You're losing credibility, if you ever had any. Again, by your logic, Augusto Pinochet wasn't guilty of torture. Noooo. He just made bad political decisions...

Don't you know how ridiculous that sounds??

excon

After noon tomorrow I will say... just like the Clintonistas... MOVE ON

Yeah banana republics execute their former leaders.
The Obots have that covered however
H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second... (GovTrack.us)

A President for life does not have such concerns.

Hello again, tom:

Binding U.S. law REQUIRES prosecutions for those who authorize torture. To wit:

(1) Vice AND dufus admitted they authorized waterboarding. (2) Waterboarding IS torture and IS illegal, as iterated by our Attorney General, Eric Holder. (3) "No one is above the law.", he said repeatedly. (4) Bush official Susan Crawford recently said, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Gates, "We tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani," . "His treatment met the legal definition of torture."

Given the above, it seems fairly easy, even for those overtly hostile to the basic rules of logic and law, to see what conclusions are COMPELLED by the above premises.

Let me quote the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.. .

The following is from the U.S. Constitution:

"..and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."

Consequently, the U.S. under Ronald Reagan, legally obligated itself to investigate and prosecute any acts of torture committed by Americans.

All of the standard excuses being offered by Bush apologists: our leaders meant well; we were facing a dangerous enemy; government lawyers said this could be done; Congress immunized the torturers; it would be too divisive to prosecute -- are explicitly barred by this treaty as grounds for refusing to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.

In fact, international treaties, which the U.S. signs and ratifies, aren't cute little left-wing platitudes for tying the hands of America, as you would have us believe. They're binding law according to the explicit mandates of Article VI of our Constitution.

Thus, there simply is no way to (1) argue against investigations and prosecutions for Bush officials and simultaneously (2) claim with a straight face to believe in the rule of law, that no one is above the law, and that the U.S. adheres to the same rules and values it attempts to impose on the rest of the world.

It's as simple as that. Once Eric Holder stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and that once both Bush and Cheney admitted to authorizing it, and that once a top Bush official used the word "torture" to describe what the U.S. did at Guantanamo, the "discretion" to investigate and prosecute disappeared.

excon

You forgot 2 things :

Legal opinions from the Justice Department that declared even the harshest interrogation methods to be legal.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants strong legal protections to government employees who relied on such legal advice .

I agree that Holders comments designed to appease the fringe in the Senate makes it harder for him to avoid taking action .But prosecuting this would send a very bad signal to people in the Agencies involved . Michael Hayden pointed that out to the Obots last week.
"If I'm going to go to an officer and say, 'I've got a truth commission, or I want to post all your e-mails, or, well, we've got this guy from the bureau who wants to talk to you,"' Hayden said, it would discourage such a CIA officer from taking risks on behalf of the new president's policies.
"We have no right to ask this guy to bet his kid's college education on who's going to win the off-year election,".

Holder also told Senator Orrin Hatch in the hearings that :
"One of the things I think I'm going to have to do is to become more familiar with what happened that led to the implementation of these policies."

Perhaps he should do that before he opens his pie hole. Forgetting the fact that the incoming CIC will want to have the flexibility himself (whether he thinks so now or not )

Edit : forgot to add link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/...interrogations

However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You forgot 2 things :

Legal opinions from the Justice Department that declared even the harshest interrogation methods to be legal.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants strong legal protections to government employees who relied on such legal advice .

---

Hello again, tom:

Uhhh, no I didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

All of the standard excuses being offered by Bush apologists: our leaders meant well; we were facing a dangerous enemy; government lawyers said this could be done; Congress immunized the torturers; it would be too divisive to prosecute -- are explicitly barred by this treaty as grounds for refusing to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .

---

excon

For those who are inclined to this sort of thing:
"On Monday, a group called AfterDowningStreet.org was scheduled to hurl footwear at the White House, an apparent slap at the president reminiscent of a recent press conference in Iraq. Other anti-war groups were set to gather at the Pentagon on the same day...Groups like Arrest Bush promise to keep the heat on the Obama administration to do what they feel they could not: hold Bush accountable for what they call war crimes...."I'm not holding out great hopes that he's [Obama] going to change things around," said Laurie Dobson of Kennebunkport, Maine.

Dobson, who unsuccessfully ran as an independent against Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in 2008, has protested Bush's policies almost from the beginning of his administration. She warned that pressure has to be kept on Obama to take action against the nation's 43rd president... People give [Obama] all kinds of excuses because they want so much to believe in him," she said. "That's how they make a tyrant.. . If we do our job as [citizens] then he could be a good president. It all depends on us keeping him in line." Yawn Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions | Political News - FOXNews.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

For those who are inclined to this sort of thing:

---

Hello again, George:

"This sort of thing" happens to be our law...

excon

I suppose what 'y'all' will have to decide is whether to fish or cut bait. The world awaits. Meanwhile, more grist for the new 'law and order' crowd:
"One measure that is an essential part of any [national security] plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals.. . [F]ederal law does not require background checks on all firearms sales. In the interest of national security, this should be changed immediately.. . To further strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to track those suspected of terrorism or other criminal acts in this country, Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale. (Eric Holder, Jr. “Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists,” The Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2001) Fortunately, or unfortunately, on this point, this law and order proponent was wrong insofar as the supreme court is concerned. He didn't mention box cutters, knives, screw drivers, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found. How many Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to a questionable war with Iraq? Conservative estimates put the number at 100,000 dead.

That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.

(Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.).

---

This is the fact, and the crime.

Here's your effort to prosecute war crimes, ex.

Quote:

---

Israel warns soldiers of prosecution abroad for Gaza 'war crimes'

At least four human rights groups are believed to be compiling suits alleging that Israelis perpetrated war crimes in planning or carrying out the three-week operation Cast Lead.

Daniel Friedman, Israel's justice minister, was appointed to head a special task force to defend individuals detained abroad and the military censor declared that names of officers from lieutenant to colonel must not be published.

More than 1,300 Palestinian deaths were reported during the offensive in Gaza and the United Nations has led demands that Israel investigate high-profile incidents including the shelling of its facilities.

Private prosecutions are already being prepared. "We are building files on war crimes throughout the chain of command from the top to the local level," said Raji Sourani of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. "We are convinced these have been the most bloody days for Gaza since the occupation and that war crimes were perpetrated against Palestinian civilians."

Courts in six countries, including Britain, have accepted petitions to prosecute alleged war crimes in previous wars. Most notoriously, activists in Belgium used a clause, since removed from the statute, to target the former prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Accusations of war crimes strike an especially sensitive chord in Israel, a nation founded in the wake of the Holocaust. Comparisons between the long siege of Gaza and the Jewish ghettoes of central Europe draw a vociferous denunciation from the government. Israel insists troops did their best to limit civilian casualties in heavily populated areas where Hamas gunmen were attacking from tunnels and had booby-trapped civilian homes.

---

Hello Steve:

If your point IS, if WE don't take care of our legal business here at home, the world will do it for us, I agree with you.

Does the world get it right?? That's what a TRIAL will determine - assuming it isn't a kangaroo trial like those Bush was doing. I would assume HIS trial will be fair.

If the Israeli's didn't commit war crimes, then there would be no evidence and they would be freed.

If Bush tortured people, and there's evidence to convict him, he should be convicted.

That IS the way things should go, isn't it?

excon

The victorious rarely stand trail for war crimes, it's the vanquished who are put on trial by those who now hold the power.

Yeah I believe an Israeli soldier would get a fair hearing in the world court..

I do believe ,I do believe, I do I do I do.. .

Since when did a bunch of lawyers get into the business of war? People fail to realize that our enemy has only one rule. That is to destroy ALL non believers no matter how or who. They don't care for their own lives because of some far fetched religious creed telling them they will get their rewards after death. And if they can take a thousand infidels with them so much the better.

Actually ex, I was expecting you to say "go Jews." I'm sure YOU really believe Israeli troops would get a fair hearing like tom does.

My point is the world has a warped sense of who and what the problem is. Either that or they're just so terrified of radical Islam that they're perfectly willing to avert their eyes to Islamic oppression that they're perfectly willing to be good little dhimmis and bow to Muslim demands rather than confront the real problem. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are easy targets. If the world sets their sights on them and manages to get their big show then they can assuage their consciences and justify their unwillingness (read cowardice) to join in the battle against radical Islam that Bush wasn't afraid to undertake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

Since when did a bunch of lawyers get into the business of war?

---

Hello again, 450:

Since we're a nation of laws... and that would be from the beginning!

So, according to you, we should throw out our laws and get down and dirty.. Wouldn't that mean the terrorists won?? I think it would. In fact, if there weren't any freedom left to defend, they DID win. No?

You must think that our founders were a bunch of namby pambys. They couldn't envision REAL bad guys when they wrote the Constitution... Like bad guys who chop off people's heads... Like that only happened recently...

Dude!

excon

Forget Bush, Gitmo, torture and all that... the new regime is going after the terrorists of Wall Street.

Quote:

---

“It offends the sensibilities,” Biden said in an interview on CNBC. “I'd like to throw these guys in the brig. I do know what they are thinking, and they are thinking of the same old thing that got us here: Greed. They are thinking: 'Take care of me.' ”

---

Maybe he can start with Dodd and Barney Frank?

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com

Quote:

---

The Washington Post writes that the Judge Crawford's decision to dismiss charges without prejudice means that the Obama administration could reinstate charges against Nashiri at a later date. Had the trial continued in defiance of Mr. Obama's request, reinstatement of charges may not have been possible.

The tactic was also used by the Bush administration when it wanted to stop various proceedings at Guantánamo. The Pentagon under Bush dismissed without prejudice charges in six cases and reinstated them later in three of those cases.

If the case had proceeded against Nashiri, a Saudi facing capital charges, a guilty plea could have boxed in the administration. The legal principle of double jeopardy would apply, and it would have been very difficult to move his case to another court, according to defense attorneys.

McClatchy reports that Nashiri's case "presents especially difficult problems for the Obama administration because he is one of three detainees held at Guantánamo that the CIA has admitted were subjected to waterboarding while in secret detention." Agence France-Presse adds that former CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted last February that Nashiri and two other terrorism suspects had been waterboarded while in CIA custody.

---

Do some of you want this guy dismissed WITH PREJUDUCE because he underwent waterboarding?



G&P

It's a disgrace. I know it's all because of the judge refusing to do the bidding of Obama. But I'd be willing to bet the charges will never be reinstated .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com
Do some of you want this guy dismissed WITH PREJUDUCE because he underwent waterboarding?
G&P

---

You mean, without prejudice, a different result.

I heard some Scripture on the weekend and I immediately thought of this topic, or what I think the topic is; Gitmo and interrogation, etc.

It occurred to me that the right leaning folk want to have a second set of rules for terrorist type folk, and the left leaning folk want the same set of rules to apply to everyone equally. I think I have that about right.

So I heard this person who is Christian and right wing read the following and admitted in general terms perhaps our leaders aren't following God's word.

The Scripture is:

Dueteronomy 25:13-16

13 "You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small"
14 "You shall not have in your house two kinds of weights, a large and a small"
15 "A full and fair weight you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you".
16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.


So I submit for discussion, is it the right or the left that is following the word of God when it comes to topics like Gitmo and detainees of conflict?