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