PDA

View Full Version : Legal Breaking: Holder to appoint torture prosecutor


orange
08-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Washington Post:

Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 24, 2009; 2:23 PM

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.

Word of Holder's decision comes on the same day that the Obama administration will issue a 2004 report by the then-CIA Inspector General. Among other things, the IG questioned the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics that included simulated drowning and wall slamming. A federal judge in New York forced the administration to release the secret report after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.

A separate internal Justice Department ethics report on the professionalism of lawyers who blessed the questioning techniques continues to undergo declassification review and is not likely to be released imminently. The New York Times reported Monday that the ethics report recommended that Holder take another look at several episodes of alleged detainee abuse that previously had been declined for prosecution during the Bush years, bolstering his decision to appoint a prosecutor.

Leaders at the Justice Department and the intelligence community have clashed this year over the release of sensitive interrogation memos, military photographs of detainee abuse and how to handle the cases of more than 200 detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Holder's decision could complicate the Justice Department's relationship with the White House, where President Obama has repeatedly expressed a desire to move forward from the national security controversies of the Bush administration. Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters Monday that the president had complete faith in Holder and that the decision whether to launch an investigation was the attorney general's sole prerogative.

"The White House supports the attorney general making the decisions on who gets prosecuted and investigated," Burton said.

Holder acknowledges the possible fallout from his decision, but has concluded in recent days that he has no other choice than to probe whether laws were broken in connection with the Bush administration's interrogation program, the two sources said. Fewer than a dozen cases will be examined, most from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Any criminal investigation into the CIA conduct faces serious hurdles, according to current and former government lawyers, including such challenges as missing evidence, nonexistent or unreliable witnesses, no access to some bodies of detainees who died, and the passage of up to seven years since the questionable activity occurred far from American soil.

During the Bush years, a team of more than a half-dozen career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is renown for its expertise in probing clandestine operations, reviewed about 20 cases of alleged prisoner abuse after receiving referrals from the military and then-CIA Inspector General John Helgerson. Among the assistant U.S. attorneys involved in the review was Robert Spencer, who successfully prosecuted al-Qaeda operative Zacharias Moussaoui and who later won one of the highest awards the Justice Department bestows.

In only one of the cases did the lawyers recommend seeking a grand jury indictment. A federal appeals court earlier this month affirmed the assault conviction of David A. Passaro, a CIA contractor who wielded a metal flashlight against a detainee at a military base in Afghanistan. Passaro was not charged with murder. Abdul Wali, the detainee he questioned, died shortly after the beating but investigators could not conclusively link his death to the flashlight attack.

A former government official involved in the previous review said that, given problems with evidence, there was "no conceivable way we could have come out different" and sought criminal indictments. The official said that analysis might change if new and reliable witnesses emerged.

Current and former CIA officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations have cited the prior review by prosecutors as one of several reasons why the Obama Justice Department need not act. They fear that any criminal investigation will chill intelligence activities and alienate operatives who are responsible for protecting national security.

In a message distributed to employees Monday morning, CIA Director Leon Panetta noted that the agency repeatedly had sought legal advice from the Justice Department, receiving "multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful. The CIA has a strong record in terms of following legal guidance and informing the Department of Justice of potentially illegal conduct."

The Justice Department investigation has roiled activists from across the political spectrum for weeks even before it became a reality Monday. The left-leaning ACLU and Alliance for Justice, as well as groups that represent torture victims, exhorted Holder to undertake a wide-ranging probe of Bush lawyers and administration officials who helped develop the interrogation policy.

But nine GOP senators who occupy prominent roles on the Judiciary Committee last week urged Holder not to act at all, arguing that further investigation was both unnecessary and unwise.

"The intelligence community will be left to wonder whether actions taken today in the interest of national security will be subject to legal recriminations when the political winds shift," said the letter, signed by lawmakers including Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Cornyn (Tex.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Charles Grassley (Iowa).

With Monday's looming public announcement, however, the attorney general and his national security team appear to be staking out a middle ground -- rejecting a broad inquiry that could result in possible prosecutions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush years as well as cabinet officers who developed counterterrorism policy; but giving civil liberties advocates at least part of what they wanted without supporting a full, independent truth commission to examine a host of Bush national security practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743.html?hpid=topnews

petegz28
08-24-2009, 01:36 PM
Must...get...health...care...off...front...page.....

wild1
08-24-2009, 01:37 PM
Breaking: Time for a distraction

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:40 PM
Is Obama even aware of what CIA does? Does he not realize that breaking laws is kind of their specialty?

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:43 PM
Let me get this straight: Obama is fine with wasting suspected terrorists remotely with a Hellfire launched from a Reaper, but he gets all icky and stuff when our people interrogate known high-value terrorists?

Am I reading his thinking correctly?

orange
08-24-2009, 01:44 PM
Story's up.

blaise
08-24-2009, 01:51 PM
Previous administration.

wild1
08-24-2009, 01:52 PM
Let me get this straight: Obama is fine with wasting suspected terrorists remotely with a Hellfire launched from a Reaper, but he gets all icky and stuff when our people interrogate known high-value terrorists?

Am I reading his thinking correctly?

He's asking you to believe.

vailpass
08-24-2009, 01:54 PM
Hey, look over here!

alpha_omega
08-24-2009, 01:56 PM
Must...get...health...care...off...front...page.....

Exactly....IMO, they couldn't be more transparent if they tried.

blaise
08-24-2009, 02:00 PM
"Okay, we're changing what "my thing" is gonna be. I'm gonna shift from health care to bringing torture criminals to justice. Make a bunch of noise about this, find a couple of patsys to parade around and make sure you let the marketing department know exactly what information you get so they can leak the appropriate material based on how well we're doing in the polls."

- Barry O: Transparency for You. I'll Let You Know If You Need Transparency For Me.

orange
08-24-2009, 02:02 PM
Must...get...health...care...off...front...page.....

Breaking: Time for a distraction

Hey, look over here!

Exactly....IMO, they couldn't be more transparent if they tried.

Amazing how they knew MONTHS AGO that Health Care Reform would be delayed until after the recess and scheduled the release of this report to quash the debate.

THOSE ARE THE GUYS I WANT IN CHARGE OF MY HEALTH CARE, I'LL TELL YOU!

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM
I don't see what the problem is. Do you or do you not believe people are above the law? I see some bitching about the timing but in your eyes there would be no good time and we should let people off without any punishment.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Wow, denise is going to be pissed. Wait, what?

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:04 PM
I don't see what the problem is. Do you or do you not believe people are above the law? I see some bitching about the timing but in your eyes there would be no good time and we should let people off without any punishment.

Is wasting suspected terrorists with Hellfires illegal?

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:05 PM
Amazing how they knew MONTHS AGO that Health Care Reform would be delayed until after the recess and scheduled the release of this report to quash the debate.

THOSE ARE THE GUYS I WANT IN CHARGE OF MY HEALTH CARE, I'LL TELL YOU!

Orange you are a well-informed dude, do you honestly believe there isn't a shred of intended diversion here?

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:05 PM
I don't see what the problem is. Do you or do you not believe people are above the law? I see some bitching about the timing but in your eyes there would be no good time and we should let people off without any punishment.

Not well versed in the whole CIA concept are you?

orange
08-24-2009, 02:06 PM
Orange you are a well-informed dude, do you honestly believe there isn't a shred of intended diversion here?

I do believe that. This investigation is NOT what Obama wants. Holder is off the reservation, here.

Obama would be happy if the last administration just sunk into the past.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:06 PM
Orange you are a well-informed dude, do you honestly believe there isn't a shred of intended diversion here?

Of course not. I'm sure that the timing with Obama's vacation at a $35,000/week compound where he will have no PCs is mere coincidence.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:06 PM
This investigation is NOT what Obama wants.

LMAO

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:07 PM
I do believe that. This investigation is NOT what Obama wants. Holder is off the reservation, here.

Obama would be happy if the last administration just sunk into the past.

Fair enough. I see your point but find it hard to believe that the AG is making moves against the CIA without the approval of the POTUS.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 02:07 PM
Is wasting suspected terrorists with Hellfires illegal?

You can blow them up, but can't pour water on their head!!

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Is wasting suspected terrorists with Hellfires illegal?

Not if they are around known terrorists

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Of course not. I'm sure that the timing with Obama's vacation at a $35,000/week compound where he will have no PCs is mere coincidence.

If I could photoshop 'bama's face into the Alfred E. Neuman "What Me Worry" caricature I'd have a new avatar.

blaise
08-24-2009, 02:09 PM
I do believe that. This investigation is NOT what Obama wants. Holder is off the reservation, here.

Obama would be happy if the last administration just sunk into the past.

You're high if you believe that.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:09 PM
Not if they are around known terrorists

I see. So, due process and all that jAZ (you know, our laws) should be conveniently pushed aside when dealing with our suspected enemies?

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
Not well versed in the whole CIA concept are you?

No one is above the law that is the standard of our country

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:11 PM
BTW, could Obama have thrown a bigger bone out to his base? I realize that they are hungry, but damn.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:12 PM
I see. So, due process and all that jAZ (you know, our laws) should be conveniently pushed aside when dealing with our suspected enemies?

If they are in a war zone shit happens.

But once they are in our land the standard changes. And let's be honest this isn't about waterboarding people these people went way farther than that.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:12 PM
If they are in a war zone shit happens.

But once they are in our land the standard changes. And let's be honest this isn't about waterboarding people these people went way farther than that.

War zone? Where's that?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 02:14 PM
Not if they are around known terrorists

Listen to what you are saying...we can blow up "suspected" terrorists because of who may be around them, by ttheir choice or not, but we can't pour water on a known terrorists face. :banghead:

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:15 PM
War zone? Where's that?

Anywhere we have the military conducting missions.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:15 PM
If they are in a war zone shit happens.

But once they are in our land the standard changes. And let's be honest this isn't about waterboarding people these people went way farther than that.

And, unless I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong), Gitmo is not "our land."

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:16 PM
Listen to what you are saying...we can blow up "suspected" terrorists because of who may be around them, by ttheir choice or not, but we can't pour water on a known terrorists face. :banghead:

This isn't about waterboarding

petegz28
08-24-2009, 02:16 PM
No one is above the law that is the standard of our country

So then cops should be able to kill people because their neighbor is a serial killer?

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:16 PM
Anywhere we have the military conducting missions.

I see. So, you are fine with disregarding our laws when it's in a "war zone" and the folks getting killed are hanging out with terrorists, yes?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
This isn't about waterboarding

Why not? You know what, you are right. We should never take another prisoner. Let's just waste the ever-loving fuck out of every battlefield. This way no one is given the chance to waterboard. We can just kill them all, guilty and suspected alike.

Yep, I like that better, dirk. You have set me straight

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:19 PM
And, unless I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong), Gitmo is not "our land."

You are wrong because a US military base is considered our land that is why McCain is eligible to be POTUS

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:20 PM
So then cops should be able to kill people because their neighbor is a serial killer?

That doesn't even make sense

mikey23545
08-24-2009, 02:20 PM
If they are in a war zone shit happens.

But once they are in our land the standard changes. And let's be honest this isn't about waterboarding people these people went way farther than that.

When you're talking about terrorists, where the hell is the " war zone", you numb-nutted Obamanaut?...ROFL

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:20 PM
You are wrong because a US military base is considered our land that is why McCain is eligible to be POTUS

IIRC, we lease the land upon which Gitmo sits. If you lease a house, do you consider it "yours"?

blaise
08-24-2009, 02:25 PM
Let him do this. I honestly believe it's a political mistake in the long run. The number of people that will view this as political grandstanding will be greater than the number that gets some sort of satisfaction from it, and the ones that want this are going to vote for him again anyway.
On top of that he's going to leave the door open for calls of hypocrisy if for some reason Holder doesn't go after someone that's an ally of Obama or someone in his own party for wrongdoing.
I don't see much net gain for Obama in it. I think he thinks there will be, but I just don't see it.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:29 PM
OMG! The CIA goons threatened to kill the families of the known, high-value terrorists?!

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:32 PM
Why not? You know what, you are right. We should never take another prisoner. Let's just waste the ever-loving fuck out of every battlefield. This way no one is given the chance to waterboard. We can just kill them all, guilty and suspected alike.

Yep, I like that better, dirk. You have set me straight

Again I am not talking about waterboarding or any enhanced interrogation techniques

I see. So, you are fine with disregarding our laws when it's in a "war zone" and the folks getting killed are hanging out with terrorists, yes?

Military personnel have to abide by the UCMJ and if there is collateral damage that is the price of war.

IIRC, we lease the land upon which Gitmo sits. If you lease a house, do you consider it "yours"?

I am sure we lease all our land that our military bases overseas. It still doesn't change the fact that it is considered US land hence why McCain can still be eligible to be POTUS. One that you conveniently ignored.

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:32 PM
No one is above the law that is the standard of our country

OK, sure. The same laws apply to every situation equally, got it.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:38 PM
OK, sure. The same laws apply to every situation equally, got it.

Do you believe the POTUS is above the law?

blaise
08-24-2009, 02:44 PM
Do you believe the POTUS is above the law?

Steven Seagal doesn't.

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:48 PM
Military personnel have to abide by the UCMJ and if there is collateral damage that is the price of war.

Huh? Military personnel administered these interrogations?

I am sure we lease all our land that our military bases overseas. It still doesn't change the fact that it is considered US land hence why McCain can still be eligible to be POTUS. One that you conveniently ignored.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

US Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1116.14: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

vailpass
08-24-2009, 02:49 PM
Do you believe the POTUS is above the law?

I believe certain actions undertaken by certain people at certains times and places have been necessary for the security and progress of our country throughout our nation's history.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:54 PM
Huh? Military personnel administered these interrogations?



http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

US Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1116.14: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

I stand corrected. You are still not wrong. Damn you.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 02:58 PM
I believe certain actions undertaken by certain people at certains times and places have been necessary for the security and progress of our country throughout our nation's history.

LMAO

You get an A for effort

Donger
08-24-2009, 02:58 PM
I stand corrected. You are still not wrong. Damn you.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

I could never hate you but I know you aren't beautiful. :)

patteeu
08-24-2009, 08:23 PM
I don't see what the problem is. Do you or do you not believe people are above the law? I see some bitching about the timing but in your eyes there would be no good time and we should let people off without any punishment.

These incidents were already investigated. Are we going to start having every new administration look over the shoulder of it's predecessor and re-evaluate it's justice decisions? And if this prosecutor comes to a different conclusion than the previous investigation, why should we believe that the most recent conclusion is the right one?

If I weren't inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just incompetent, I might conclude that Obama is trying to ruin the economy and be as divisive as possible.

patteeu
08-24-2009, 08:26 PM
If I could photoshop 'bama's face into the Alfred E. Neuman "What Me Worry" caricature I'd have a new avatar.

http://a6.vox.com/6a00d09e7bc293be2b01098156c03e000d-320pi

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 08:29 PM
I do believe that. This investigation is NOT what Obama wants. Holder is off the reservation, here.

Obama would be happy if the last administration just sunk into the past.

I agree. That's why you'll never hear Obama refer to the previous administration.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 08:30 PM
You can blow them up, but can't pour water on their head!!If we aren't supposed to pour water on their heads, why do they wear the towels?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:32 PM
If we aren't supposed to pour water on their heads, why do they wear the towels?

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 08:42 PM
These incidents were already investigated. Are we going to start having every new administration look over the shoulder of it's predecessor and re-evaluate it's justice decisions? And if this prosecutor comes to a different conclusion than the previous investigation, why should we believe that the most recent conclusion is the right one?


Maybe because when you have incompetent Attorney General's like Bush had how can anyone trust their judgement on anything?

Just like Obama has now opened up the investigation on the massacre in Afghanistan that was swept underneath the rug by the previous administration.

Guru
08-24-2009, 08:45 PM
Yea!!!! More of our tax dollars hard at work. Gotta love our government.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:46 PM
Maybe because when you have incompetent Attorney General's like Bush had how can anyone trust their judgement on anything?

Just like Obama has now opened up the investigation on the massacre in Afghanistan that was swept underneath the rug by the previous administration.

Ah....blame Bush. LMAO

I guess we are supposed to fight a war but not kill anyone as well, heh? :)

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 08:47 PM
Maybe because when you have incompetent Attorney General's like Bush had how can anyone trust their judgement on anything?

Just like Obama has now opened up the investigation on the massacre in Afghanistan that was swept underneath the rug by the previous administration.

Wars should be limited to direct threats to our national sovereignty like Bosnia. That way, we don't run the risk of people getting needlessly killed by our soldiers.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 08:53 PM
Ah....blame Bush. LMAO

I guess we are supposed to fight a war but not kill anyone as well, heh? :)

I am not directly blaming Bush he only hired them. All of his AG's were pretty much incompetent

patteeu
08-24-2009, 08:54 PM
Maybe because when you have incompetent Attorney General's like Bush had how can anyone trust their judgement on anything?

Just like Obama has now opened up the investigation on the massacre in Afghanistan that was swept underneath the rug by the previous administration.

I think all of Obama's DoJ decisions need to be reviewed by the next Republican administration because Eric Holder appears to be both a racist and a traitor.

Anyone can play that game, which is why it's so toxic to our civil institutions. It's abhorrent. And it's sad that so many people like you are willing to support it just because you had political differences with Bush.

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 09:05 PM
I think all of Obama's DoJ decisions need to be reviewed by the next Republican administration because Eric Holder appears to be both a racist and a traitor.

Anyone can play that game, which is why it's so toxic to our civil institutions. It's abhorrent. And it's sad that so many people like you are willing to support it just because you had political differences with Bush.

See there you go calling people traitor because you don't like them.

What you aren't understanding is that this investigation isn't going after any big fish they are going after people who ignored what Bush ordered and went above and beyond that. People aren't above the law and if they broke laws they need to be punished.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:07 PM
See there you go calling people traitor because you don't like them.

What you aren't understanding is that this investigation isn't going after any big fish they are going after people who ignored what Bush ordered and went above and beyond that. People aren't above the law and if they broke laws they need to be punished.

Can't this be dealt with via court-marshallings?

dirk digler
08-24-2009, 09:13 PM
Can't this be dealt with via court-marshallings?

You can't court marshal CIA

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:17 PM
You can't court marshal CIA

Good point.

craneref
08-24-2009, 09:33 PM
These incidents were already investigated. Are we going to start having every new administration look over the shoulder of it's predecessor and re-evaluate it's justice decisions? And if this prosecutor comes to a different conclusion than the previous investigation, why should we believe that the most recent conclusion is the right one?

If I weren't inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just incompetent, I might conclude that Obama is trying to ruin the economy and be as divisive as possible.

That is not it, you see now this administration has to admit that they missed the deficit mark by 2 TRILLION dollars, just like the CBO said 6 months ago, better have Holder go on a witch hunt for someone to prosecute in the former administration. I guess "Bush lied so I miscalculated by 2 TRILLION dollars" doesn't have the same ring to it!! :)

patteeu
08-25-2009, 08:00 AM
See there you go calling people traitor because you don't like them.

And you called Bush AGs "incompetent" because you didn't like them. That's what I meant when I said "anyone can play that game".

What you aren't understanding is that this investigation isn't going after any big fish they are going after people who ignored what Bush ordered and went above and beyond that. People aren't above the law and if they broke laws they need to be punished.

No, I understand it fine. What you don't understand is that these events have already been investigated and a determination has already been made. How many times are you willing to re-open this investigation? Is your goal to just keep re-investigating until you find a prosecutor who is willing to prosecute? This is about bush league, red meat politics not about justice.

jAZ
08-25-2009, 09:20 AM
OMG! The CIA goons threatened to kill the families of the known, high-value terrorists?!

That's against the law.

Donger
08-25-2009, 09:42 AM
That's against the law.

So is wasting alleged terrorists with Hellfires.

jAZ
08-25-2009, 09:44 AM
So is wasting alleged terrorists with Hellfires.

No it's not.

Donger
08-25-2009, 09:46 AM
No it's not.

Premeditated murder isn't against our laws?

petegz28
08-25-2009, 09:47 AM
No it's not.

Yes, it is, per your rants, anwyay. What if they weren't terrorists?

jAZ
08-25-2009, 10:19 AM
Premeditated murder isn't against our laws?

Not in a war zone.

jAZ
08-25-2009, 10:21 AM
Yes, it is, per your rants, anwyay. What if they weren't terrorists?

Missile attacks on a battlefield, during a war are generally legal. Threatening to kill a prisoner or his family during an interrogation are illegal.

Donger
08-25-2009, 10:21 AM
Not in a war zone.

How do you define war zone?

petegz28
08-25-2009, 10:26 AM
Missile attacks on a battlefield, during a war are generally legal. Threatening to kill a prisoner or his family during an interrogation are illegal.

Here...:deevee:


That is just for you....

Donger
08-25-2009, 10:27 AM
Missile attacks on a battlefield, during a war are generally legal. Threatening to kill a prisoner or his family during an interrogation are illegal.

Out of mere curiosity, what law do you allege the interrogators violated?

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 10:27 AM
How do you define war zone?

I don't why you 2 keep making this silly argument

<table id="wn"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td>war zone - a combat zone where military operations are coordinated </td></tr></tbody></table>

petegz28
08-25-2009, 10:32 AM
I don't why you 2 keep making this silly argument

<table id="wn"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td>war zone - a combat zone where military operations are coordinated </td></tr></tbody></table>

That is an inaccruate definitions. Military operations are not always "coordianted" in a combat zone, rather they are executed in the combat zone. Often they are coordinated from 1,000's of miles away.

Donger
08-25-2009, 10:33 AM
I don't why you 2 keep making this silly argument

<table id="wn"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td>war zone - a combat zone where military operations are coordinated </td></tr></tbody></table>

I just find it amusing that jAZ is fine with Obama killing alleged suspected terrorists without due process (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment), but he starts wringing his hands when our own people rough up known, high value terrorists.

Of course, it really isn't about that. It's about "getting Bush."

petegz28
08-25-2009, 10:37 AM
I just find it amusing that jAZ is fine with Obama killing alleged suspected terrorists without due process (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment), but he starts wringing his hands when our own people rough up known, high value terrorists.

Of course, it really isn't about that. It's about "getting Bush."

:clap:

Especially considering that Obama and continued everything Bush was doing.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 10:43 AM
That is an inaccruate definitions. Military operations are not always "coordianted" in a combat zone, rather they are executed in the combat zone. Often they are coordinated from 1,000's of miles away.

I would define it as where the intended targets are at and where the mission is to be conducted.

I just find it amusing that jAZ is fine with Obama killing alleged suspected terrorists without due process (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment), but he starts wringing his hands when our own people rough up known, high value terrorists.

Of course, it really isn't about that. It's about "getting Bush."

You are a smart guy Donger you know the difference between going after the bad guys and torturing people.

Mistakes happen on the battlefield because alot of times you have limited intelligence. But when you capture someone and detain them there is a different legal standard.

Basically you are it is equal to cops who go on a drug bust and end up killing a couple of people to arresting someone and beating the shit out of them to get a confession.

2 different situations and 2 different legal standards

Donger
08-25-2009, 10:48 AM
You are a smart guy Donger you know the difference between going after the bad guys and torturing people.

Mistakes happen on the battlefield because alot of times you have limited intelligence. But when you capture someone and detain them there is a different legal standard.

Basically you are it is equal to cops who go on a drug bust and end up killing a couple of people to arresting someone and beating the shit out of them to get a confession.

2 different situations and 2 different legal standards

"Torturing people"? You are surely in agreement that the three "people" we interrogating using enhanced techniques were "bad guys" too, right? Rather unpleasant and most definitely enemies of our country, no?

petegz28
08-25-2009, 10:52 AM
I would define it as where the intended targets are at and where the mission is to be conducted.



You are a smart guy Donger you know the difference between going after the bad guys and torturing people.

Mistakes happen on the battlefield because alot of times you have limited intelligence. But when you capture someone and detain them there is a different legal standard.

Basically you are it is equal to cops who go on a drug bust and end up killing a couple of people to arresting someone and beating the shit out of them to get a confession.

2 different situations and 2 different legal standards
And you still have a basci lack of understaning of the word "torture".

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 10:54 AM
"Torturing people"? You are surely in agreement that the three "people" we interrogating using enhanced techniques were "bad guys" too, right? Rather unpleasant and most definitely enemies of our country, no?

I am not talking about waterboarding I am talking about the ones that went above and beyond what Bush authorized.

Donger
08-25-2009, 10:55 AM
I am not talking about waterboarding I am talking about the ones that went above and beyond what Bush authorized.

Then you acknowledge that waterboarding was legal at the time?

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Then you acknowledge that waterboarding was legal at the time?

As far as the CIA is concerned to them it was legal because the Bush justice dept said it was.

Others will have to make the determination if the justice dept screwed up.

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:08 AM
As far as the CIA is concerned to them it was legal because the Bush justice dept said it was.

Others will have to make the determination if the justice dept screwed up.

I realize that some people forget rather easily, so I present this as an example of what our enemies do to our captured:

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:13 AM
I realize that some people forget rather easily, so I present this as an example of what our enemies do to our captured:

Two wrongs don't make a right. I hold our country to a higher standard than the terrorists.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:13 AM
I realize that some people forget rather easily, so I present this as an example of what our enemies do to our captured:

I know exactly what some of our enemies do to our captured. I also know what your country did to our captured and civilians during the American Revolution.

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:15 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right. I hold our country to a higher standard than the terrorists.

I make a massive distinction between cutting off someone's f*cking head and pretending to drown them, denying them sleep or threatening to kill their mother.

If you don't, fine. But, I'd ask you which you'd prefer?

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:16 AM
I know exactly what some of our enemies do to our captured. I also know what your country did to our captured and civilians during the American Revolution.

My country?

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:17 AM
I make a massive distinction between cutting off someone's f*cking head and pretending to drown them, denying them sleep or threatening to kill their mother.

If you don't, fine. But, I'd ask you which you'd prefer?

False choice. I prefer neither. Again, we are the US. We have a higher standard than they do. Their horrible actions don't justify us using torture.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:19 AM
My country?

oops I forgot....:)

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:20 AM
False choice. I prefer neither. Again, we are the US. We have a higher standard than they do. Their horrible actions don't justify us using torture.

Indeed, we do, demonstrably so.

Duck Dog
08-25-2009, 11:33 AM
Liberals will always find a way to prosecute the military man.

Duck Dog
08-25-2009, 11:35 AM
False choice. I prefer neither. Again, we are the US. We have a higher standard than they do. Their horrible actions don't justify us using torture.

So you think sleep deprivation is torture and should be banned too? What about talking to them in real stern voice?

vailpass
08-25-2009, 11:36 AM
Those of you who don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done should be grateful that there are those who do.

wild1
08-25-2009, 11:38 AM
We've gotten today's new economic projections, and they're very grim - which is why, I assume, torture is trumpeted back into the news again.

wild1
08-25-2009, 11:38 AM
So you think sleep deprivation is torture and should be banned too? What about talking to them in real stern voice?

Well then, as a student I had many an upstairs neighbor who was guilty of torture.

Duck Dog
08-25-2009, 11:40 AM
Well then, as a student I had many an upstairs neighbor who was guilty of torture.

Probably loud music too. You might be eligible for some sort of pay back.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:46 AM
So you think sleep deprivation is torture and should be banned too? What about talking to them in real stern voice?

I don't have a problem with sleep deprivation. I don't have a problem with the loud music. I do have a problem with waterboarding as it is a mock execution IMO.

mlyonsd
08-25-2009, 12:36 PM
Note to dems:

Nobody cares. Until of course you screw up our intelligience agencies and we're attacked again. Then the public will care.

go bowe
08-25-2009, 01:50 PM
You're high if you believe that.well, i'm high and i don't believe that...

Duck Dog
08-25-2009, 04:13 PM
I don't have a problem with sleep deprivation. I don't have a problem with the loud music. I do have a problem with waterboarding as it is a mock execution IMO.

So you are for torture then, as long as it's on your terms?

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:24 PM
So you are for torture then, as long as it's on your terms?

I don't consider sleep deprivation nor loud music as torture. Waterboarding on the other produces a sensation of drowning and the waterboardee feels like they are dying. The other techniques produce no such responses.