Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Yoo Ain't Seen Nothing Yet
Last week, ex-Bush executive power rationalizer John Yoo penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal heaping the usual criticisms on the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision, which held that the government can't just snatch people up off the street, then hold them forever without ever giving them a trial.
Glenn Greenwald dresses Yoo down here. Cato's Tim Lynch has a go at him here. Meanwhile, Gene Healy finds an intriguing article written for Cato a few years ago attacking Bill Clinton for his unilateral, imperious approach to foreign policy. That article's author? John Yoo.
Hack-tastic!
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 8:39AM|#
A hired gun's bullets fly in whichever way the money directs.
Catching a hack being a hack is no more damning that catching a
squirrel stealing nuts and hoarding them. That is what they are,
they know no better.
Poor Yoo.
JMR|6.23.08 @ 8:41AM|#
Cue a neocon explanation for why this is somehow still
"consistent" in 5...4...3...2...
JMR
Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 8:45AM|#
John Yoo once worked for Cato?
Wow, talk about grist for the Rockwellian mill. Hey, "Stato" - nice
hire there with the Yoo guy.
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 8:46AM|#
That's not hard, JMR. Let me give it a shot.
"Clinton lacked an understanding of American Empire as a *primary*
agenda item, and thus to give imperial powers to such a man would
only reinforce his pettiness. We need a man who understands that
building and maintaining the American Hegemon is the most important
task of a modern president, and to give such a man *Expansive
powers* is not only right, it is necessary!"
Taktix®|6.23.08 @ 8:52AM|#
That's not hard, JMR. Let me give it a shot.
Too many big words, it's got to be shorter and ore succinct.
Ahem:
"We're at war, and in a post-9/11 world, we can't afford to take
such risks."
Also, this sentence is a catch-all of sorts; feel free to use it
regarding any issue.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 8:58AM|#
Hack, indeed.
Reminds me of listening to Sean Hannity in 1999 demanding that
Clinton have an "exit strategy". Those were the days...
|6.23.08 @ 8:59AM|#
oooh oooh, let me try!
"You all want Barack Hussein Obama for president, but he'll just
raise yer taxes and let all of his muslim buddies in guantanamo go
so they can kill us real Americans. That's why he won't even say
the pledge!"
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 8:59AM|#
How did 9/11 move from a national tragedy to a punch line in seven short years?
Episiarch|6.23.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Cue a neocon explanation for why this is somehow still
"consistent" in 5...4...3...2...
Daddy Bush: great President or greatest President?
|6.23.08 @ 9:01AM|#
"which held that the government can't just snatch people up off
the street, then hold them forever without ever giving them a
trial."
Of course the US and every other country has been doing that for
thousands of years. They are called POWs Radley. This decision is
another in a long line of "it pays to be a terrorist" decisions. I
don't buy the right wing scare mongers who claim that this decision
means that every POW can get relief in US courts. The Courts are
too politically sensitive for that. No way would they allow real
POWs to get relief. The public would never allow it. But a
terrorist caught somewhere? Absolutely.
The whole idea behind the laws of war is to humanize war by
creating rules and then providing protections to those who abide by
the rules. In the last 40 years we have turned that on its head.
Soldiers who follow the laws of war and get captured get a one way
ticket to a prison cell for the duration. Someone who hides among
civilians and ignores the laws of war and is captured gets to have
due process in federal court. Why be a soldier where you can be
killed on site and captured and held with no due process when you
can be a terrorist who can hide in the civilian population and get
due process if you are ever captured? The bottom-line is that it
pays to be a terrorist under this regime.
Episiarch|6.23.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Imagine the joy of a world where public hypocrisy was a
fatal disease.
Or one where the media might actually call people on their
hypocrisy and (also) on utterly wrong predictions.
|6.23.08 @ 9:02AM|#
How did 9/11 move from a national tragedy to a punch line in
seven short years?
Two words: Rudy
Giuliani
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:04AM|#
John, the problem is the old rules were great for fighting the
regular army of a foreign country in a conventional war.
They are not made for a counter-insurgency or a war against
terrorists. However, it'd be better to change the rules rather than
to just ignore them.
|6.23.08 @ 9:04AM|#
How did 9/11 move from a national tragedy to a punch line in
seven short years?
It's difficult to pin-point, but sometime around when it started to
be used to justify every long-held authoritarian fantasy.
Sort of like when global warming became a punch-line when people
started using to suggest that people live in houses made out of straw bales.
|6.23.08 @ 9:04AM|#
What a joke. Isnt it time to put Dictator Bush and his whole
regime out to pasture? Enough already.
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Too many big words, it's got to be shorter and more
succinct.
Sorry. I was channeling Krauthammer, not Kristol.
[Comment by John, blah, blah, blah]
No, John. By int'l law POWs can only be held for the duration of
the hostilities. If they are held past that, it is in violation of
the law. You wouldn't by any chance be advocating that the US
should violate the law now, are you?
Unless of course you somehow confused "duration of conflict" with
"forever". What a conflation!
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:08AM|#
Unless of course you somehow confused "duration of conflict" with "forever".
Many neoconservatives do.
|6.23.08 @ 9:09AM|#
"They are not made for a counter-insurgency or a war against
terrorists. However, it'd be better to change the rules rather than
to just ignore them."
The old rules were not so bad. You held military tribunals and made
sure you had the right people and punished them. You didn't go to
federal court. The problem is that I am not sure we are even
capable of that anymore. The military or their JAGs or both will
find a way to fuck that up to or if they don't, the civilian
political hacks who run the Pentagon will fuck it up for them. IT
is not that hard to run a fair and ethical military tribunal. We
did it after World War II. No, I don't think the government should
just be able grab people and keep them locked up forever, absent a
formal war and POW status. But settling it all in Federal court is
a terrible idea to. We are just not a serious country anymore. On
the one hand you have the Bush admin trying to claim that GUTMO is
not US territory and having the CIA torture people and run secret
prisons and on the other you have the Supreme Court claiming every
detention should be the subject of full blown federal litigation. A
pox on both their houses.
|6.23.08 @ 9:10AM|#
"No, John. By int'l law POWs can only be held for the duration
of the hostilities. If they are held past that, it is in violation
of the law. You wouldn't by any chance be advocating that the US
should violate the law now, are you?"
That is right, the "duration of the hostilities", which can be
years or in the case of Vietnam decades. But, you don't get any due
process about it.
|6.23.08 @ 9:12AM|#
Of course the US and every other country has been doing that
for thousands of years. They are called POWs Radley.
Great, so, since they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply to them
then? So holding them incommunicado is illegal. You should tell
that to the Bush Administration.
|6.23.08 @ 9:17AM|#
How did 9/11 move from a national tragedy to a punch line in
seven short years?
It might have something to do with the eagerness of so many people
to throw the Constitution into the toilet, in order to fool
themselves into believing they have (or can ever have) reduced an
infinitesimal risk to zero.
You know, the whole "They hate us for our freedoms" thing; let's
get rid of our freedoms, and be just like them.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:18AM|#
My 9/11 question was rhetorical, but its been answered very well nevertheless.
|6.23.08 @ 9:19AM|#
"Great, so, since they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply to
them then? So holding them incommunicado is illegal. You should
tell that to the Bush Administration."
We shouldn't be holding them that way. We should be trying them and
if they are guilty hanging them or giving them long prison
sentences. Bush fucked it up royally. The old rules worked really
well and gave him lots of options to deal with this. The problem is
that both he and his advisors didn't understand the old rules well
enough to tell the NGOs and the lawfare types to fuck off and do it
the right way. Instead, they invented tortured bullshit reasons to
throw the old rules out. Not only did they act illegally, they also
ceded the ground to the lawfare liberals and basically admitted you
can't effectively wage war under the rules, which is bullshit. You
can. You just have to understand and have a reasonable
interpretation of the rules.
|6.23.08 @ 9:20AM|#
I know memories are short, but when are GOPers going to realize that they won't have success at the polls until they stop being full of shit? They haven't been fooling anybody for like 4 years now.
|6.23.08 @ 9:21AM|#
POWs are neither snatched off the street, nor held forever. You
know better than that, John.
You also know that terrorists, unlike POWs, can be tried as
criminals for their actions and sentenced to extended terms, or
even death. What you're bitching about is that the trials at which
such judgements will be rendered have to be something approaching
fair and reliable, instead of kangaroo courts.
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 9:28AM|#
The problem is that both he and his advisors didn't
understand the old rules well enough to tell the NGOs and
the lawfare types to fuck off and do it the right
way.
The first bold is an example of something laughably stupid
(professional lawyers don't know--or can't research--the proper
application of a system that's been around for a century?), but the
second bold, the neologism, is vaguely interesting.
Lawfare? Is that the new libertarian pejorative for
lawyers? (If we make it sound like welfare, maybe they won't like
it?)
Carlin dying really sucks and puts me in an exceptionally bad
mood today.
Me too. I'm gonna be playing his greatest hits all day. Seven
words is the apex of comedy, to me.
|6.23.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Was Nuremburg a kangaroo court Joe? Why did we do that and just
not try all of them in federal court?
Also Joe get the fuck out of here. As soon as Obama is elected, if
he is elected, he will be doing the same thing and you will either
not be saying anything or on here telling us how good it is. How
long have you been on here bitching about FISA and telecom immunity
and when Obama refuses to do one thing about it, we don't hear a
peep out of you or I am sure some bullshit obfuscation about how
Obama FISA is different.
|6.23.08 @ 9:30AM|#
But settling it all in Federal court is a terrible idea
to.
"It all?" Did the recent decision order all Gitmo detainees to be
tried on criminal charges in federal courts? Because I'm pretty
sure that all it did was authorize federal judges to issue writs of
habeas corpus, and only did that because the kangaroo courts were
so stacked and unreliable than the SCOTUS decided that federal
court oversight of the process was necesary unless the military
tribunals' shortcomings were fixed.
They fired a military judge in the middle of a trial because he
wasn't ruling the way the prosecution wants him to, as this case
was before the Supreme Court. Damn straight they're going to stick
their noses in. This process is a desgrace, and kudos to the
Supremes for doing something about it.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I'd really like to see you try to defend your candidate's flip flop on FISA, joe.
|6.23.08 @ 9:31AM|#
Nuremburg was a model of civilized jursisprudence compared to
the Gitmo courts.
And stop whining at me about your partisan bullshit just because
you can't defend your arguments.
JMR|6.23.08 @ 9:32AM|#
That's the great thing about a war on "terror" or "drugs." The
duration of conflict is by definition FOREVER, so it's not an
issue. We're always "winning" both, and there's a "light at the end
of the tunnel," but for some reason every year more tax money must
be borrowed/taxed and spent.
And on the subject of the ruling, Federal Judges get piles of
habeus petitions. A clerk is assigned to read them and give a 1
page synopsis, but generally (I'd say 98% of the time) it's not any
issue except a prisoner with too much time on his/her hands. They
know how to say "no."
JMR
|6.23.08 @ 9:33AM|#
NNG,
If he flip-flops, and does not attempt to strip telecom immuinity
from the Senate bill, you won't find me defending him, NNG.
But, you see, there hasn't been a bill taken up in the Senate yet,
so we'll have to wait and see what he does.
|6.23.08 @ 9:33AM|#
"The first bold is an example of something laughably stupid
(professional lawyers don't know--or can't research--the proper
application of a system that's been around for a century?), but the
second bold, the neologism, is vaguely interesting."
No one outside of a few military circles thought about things like
the Geneva Conventions before 9-11. John Yoo and Gonzalez and the
whole crew at Office of Legal Counsel to the President and at DOJ
didn't know a damn thing about history or the law of war. But that
didn't stop them from panicking after 9-11 and all of the sudden
becoming experts on the subject. Further, the CIA and FBI are
totally broke and incompetent and fed them bullshit operational
requirements. Think about the idea of keeping someone in
communicado after capture. The idea is that we can't say who we
have captured because that will let the enemy know we are onto
them. What, they are not going to notice that Abdul is gone? For a
few days or maybe a week I can see, but forever? Only a fucking
moron law prof like John Yoo who has never been anywhere or done
anything could believe something that stupid.
No, these people really are dumb and in over their heads. They
didn't know shit and panicked after 9-11.
|6.23.08 @ 9:35AM|#
"Nuremburg was a model of civilized jursisprudence compared to
the Gitmo courts."
Read my post Joe. I am saying that Bush and company fucked it up.
They should have done Nuremburg and were too stupid to do it. What
was more important, if they would have just adopted the Nuremburg
rules, people would have had a hard time complaining. They still
would have, but they would have had a lot less ground to stand
on.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:39AM|#
If he does vote for the FISA bill when its in the Senate and it contains telecom immunity, Obama will have become Hillary Clinton. Just a centrist triangulator.
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 9:40AM|#
I'm sorry, John, I just can't buy the "we didn't know something
we could have easily looked up in a fucking book" defense. Shit, a
fourteen year old armed with nothing but Wikipedia could put
together a system of combatant justice consistent with past
practice.
And even if they hadn't been thinking about it, as soon as they
captured their first prisoner they should have started. Just send
some underpaid interns to go pound the books! That's what they're
for!
|6.23.08 @ 9:40AM|#
the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision, which held that the
government can't just snatch people up off the street, then hold
them forever without ever giving them a trial.
Technically, it held that the government can't capture a
non-citizen in a foreign location (or have that person delivered as
a prisoner by an allied group) and bring them to a location with
some sort of substantial US control over the location but from
which it would be not too expensive to remand them to a US court
system for a trial.
Snatching inside the US and outside of citizens were dealt with in
other cases. The opinion in Boumediene refused to overrule
Johnson v. Eisentrager, and in the opinion specifically
left open the possibility of indefinite imprisonment in locations
less controlled by the US government due to the way the distinction
was made.
But hey, what's accuracy when you can turn a pithy phrase?
Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 9:43AM|#
No way would they allow real POWs to get relief. The public
would never allow it. But a terrorist caught somewhere?
Absolutely.
The whole idea behind the laws of war is to humanize war by
creating rules and then providing protections to those who abide by
the rules. In the last 40 years we have turned that on its
head.
Dude, you're an idiot.
You don't think it's an advantage to be declared a POW rather than
enter the criminal justice system?
A POW can kill thousands, and can blow up whatever he wants, and he
can't be punished. He can be detained, but even the
conditions of his detention are strictly regulated: he has to be
allowed to live with other POW's, he has to be left under his own
officers, the Red Cross has to be allowed to visit him, he has to
be allowed to receive parcels, he can't be interrogated, etc. And
he has to be released at the end of the conflict without a hair on
his head being out of place
A non-POW, however, if proven in a court of law to have killed
thousands and to have blown things up, can be given the gas chamber
and no one can say fucking shit about it.
The privilege of being a POW is that you can commit limitless acts
of violence and get away with it in the end.
So by all means, let's not treat these detainees as POW's. Let's
try and punish them for their crimes using the criminal justice
system, and show the world that you can't commit acts of terrorism
and escape punishment by being sent home when the conflict is over.
By all means. But if we're talking about people held by Americans
who aren't POW's, then we're talking about the American
criminal justice system, and not some shit Bush made up on the back
on an envelope.
|6.23.08 @ 9:44AM|#
"I'm sorry, John, I just can't buy the "we didn't know something
we could have easily looked up in a fucking book" defense. Shit, a
fourteen year old armed with nothing but Wikipedia could put
together a system of combatant justice consistent with past
practice."
I am not saying it is a defense. I have no use for Yoo or Ganzelez.
There were plenty of people who knew the right way to handle it.
But they were too panicked and arrogant to listen. Yoo is a Berkley
law professor. Gonzalez a former State Attorney General. Who are
mere mortals who you know might actually know something to tell
them what is right? They are both a product of our elitist society
where no one can tell the people in charge or someone with the
right credentials that they are full of shit, even when they
are.
|6.23.08 @ 9:45AM|#
But since they didn't follow a model like Nuremburg, or the
existing court martial rules like the UCMJ, what are the courts to
do?
It's nice that you feel that there are problems with this system,
but if you don't want the federal courts to step in to fix it,
(your first comment on the subject being to that effect)( you're
saying those problems are just a matter of policy without
consitutional bearing, and that is too weak.
|6.23.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Fluffy,
Yeah combatant immunity is a great thing if you can get it, but
even if you have it you are still stuck in a camp for the duration
if you are captured. If you are a terrorist, they have to prove you
did those things. Further, if you are a high profile one, you will
get a blue chip law firm to defend you for free. My guess is that
most of the people at GUITMO right now will walk free sooner or
later. None of them sans maybe KSM will ever be convicted much less
punished.
Alice Bowie|6.23.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Perhaps we can take
John Yoo
Scalia
Dick Cheney
and their children and grandchildren
and label them as terrorist and hold them in Jail.
I think we can all agree that none of these men are terrorist. And,
if by any chance they were detained, they too should be given the
opportunity to say it wasn't me.
I don't know why they would deny anyone else the same BASIC HUMAN
RIGHT.
|6.23.08 @ 9:50AM|#
if they would have just adopted the Nuremburg rules, people
would have had a hard time complaining.
And the administration would have found it almost impossible to
convict anyone. Leaving aside the people who were just caught up
and who didn't do anything wrong, the rest would be in there on
"suspiscion of intent to carry out terror attacks," with little
more than the circumstantial evidence that the charge implies. And
that's ignoring the fact that the Nuremburg rules stipulate that
the proceedings be public, which, if one believes the crop of liars
at the top, would require making public information about currently
operating antiterror actions. I realize you've siezed on the idea
that the legal experts in the DoJ were ignorant because it allows
you to believe that you didn't support people who are feckless
morons and failed criminals, but the evidence doesn't support you
in that.
Nor are you the International Law expert you make yourself out to
be. What was your specialty, by the way?
|6.23.08 @ 9:50AM|#
If you are a terrorist, they have to prove you did those
things.
Every single one of the people we're talking about could be
declared POWs, unilaterally by the military, tomorrow, and as long
as they were treated like POWs, they would have no habeas rights,
no change to prove their innocence, nothing.
There terrorists don't have any rights beyond those of POWs. The
entirety of their legal rights stems from the fact that they are
facing trials and punishment as criminals.
|6.23.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"But since they didn't follow a model like Nuremburg, or the
existing court martial rules like the UCMJ, what are the courts to
do?"
First, the UCMJ is actually more liberal and forgiving than federal
law. Stay out of it and leave it as a political matter. This case
sets the precedent where the courts rather than the congress and
the President will run this and that sucks and is a terrible
precedent. It doesn't let Bush off the hook for fucking it up, but
it is still a terrible precedent.
Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Was Nuremburg a kangaroo court Joe? Why did we do that and
just not try all of them in federal court?
Because one party to the Nuremburg trials was the Soviet Union, who
had a different system of jurisprudence than we did.
What you're bitching about is that the trials at which such
judgements will be rendered have to be something approaching fair
and reliable, instead of kangaroo courts.
Joe hits it dead on the head here.
What the hell was the Administration afraid of?
Did they seriously think that if they stuck these guys into federal
courts in 2002 or 2003 that there was this huge risk of American
juries letting them go?
They aren't OJ, you know.
These guys would have faced judges and juries who would have bent
over backwards to convict them, had they been brought to trial in a
speedy way.
"Wah! We don't want to reveal our evidence!" Tough shit. That's the
price you pay for getting a conviction.
Of course, now that they've polluted all the available evidence by
torturing these guys, and by not providing speedy trials, etc., if
they brought them to trial now they might face a more difficult
environment. Whose fault is that?
|6.23.08 @ 9:53AM|#
What the hell was the Administration afraid of?
The former cheif prosecutor at Gitmo quotes his boss, the
Pentagon's head lawyer, saying "We can't have acquittals. We've
been holding these guys so long, it would look bad if any of them
were acquitted."
Inexpert legal knowledge my butt.
|6.23.08 @ 9:53AM|#
"And the administration would have found it almost impossible to
convict anyone. Leaving aside the people who were just caught up
and who didn't do anything wrong, the rest would be in there on
"suspiscion of intent to carry out terror attacks," with little
more than the circumstantial evidence that the charge
implies."
You could convict them all. Al Quada is a criminal organization. It
has been declared so by UN Security council resolution. At
Nuremburg mere membership in the Nazi Pary or the SS or other
certain organization made you guilty. You do the same thing with Al
Quada. All you have to prove is that they were members and they are
guilty. Now, what they actually did or did not do is a question for
sentencing, but not for guilt.
Partisan Republican|6.23.08 @ 9:53AM|#
"Meanwhile, Gene Healy finds an intriguing article written for
Cato a few years ago attacking Bill Clinton for his unilateral,
imperious approach to foreign policy. That article's author? John
Yoo."
But that was different because Clinton was a Democrat.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:54AM|#
I don't know why its so hard to put these people in a place like
Supermax. That seems to work for our various domestic
terrorists.
And I don't want to hear bull shit about how these people are
hardened survivalists who would think Supermax is the Comfort Inn.
Eric Rudolph is probably a better survivalist than any of the
clowns at Gitmo, and he said Supermax is making him go insane.
|6.23.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Actually Joe is right. They fucked up and waited so long that
they can't let any of these guys go without embarrassment. Further,
the CIA fucked up and didn't build cases against them with anything
beyond coerced evidence. We know have a case where we have people
we know are guilty but don't have, thanks to the CIA, the evidence
to convict them. It is a complete mess.
Also, why the hell can't you people read the damn posts? How many
times do I have to write "Bush fucked this up" before you people
get it through your thick skulls that I am blaming Bush not
defending him?
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 9:57AM|#
My guess is that most of the people at GITMO right now will
walk free sooner or later. None of them sans maybe KSM will ever be
convicted much less punished.
Strip the 'terrorism' and scary sounding Arabic names out of that,
present it to any decent prosecutor, and he'll undoubtedly say "not
enough evidence to prosecute? We have to cut 'em loose."
The flaw in this brilliant plan is finding a decent
prosecutor...
If killing people in order to scare other people is all that sets
these jokers apart from other species of criminal, do we not have
legislation on the books for dealing with criminal organizations?
The mafia kills people in order to scare others, sometimes with the
intent of changing governing or business policies...and yet our war
against the mob has gone *very well*.
|6.23.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Well, so much for my theory that John Yoo is actually the
Highlander, and has been battling habeas corpus for over 700
years!
(Hint, John: you have to decapitate it).
|6.23.08 @ 9:58AM|#
No Name Guy,
Supermax is awful. I think it would be more human to hang someone
like Rudolph than stick him in supermax.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 9:59AM|#
John, at least you realize its a pretty awful place to live. I've had certain neoconservatives tell me that Supermax would be like a "luxury hotel" to Al Qaeda members and thats why we need Gitmo.
|6.23.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"John, at least you realize its a pretty awful place to live.
I've had certain neoconservatives tell me that Supermax would be
like a "luxury hotel" to Al Qaeda members and thats why we need
Gitmo."
Yeah but GITMO is a lot better than supermax. I would rather be at
GITMO than supermax. I would rather be anywhere than supermax.
|6.23.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Further, the CIA fucked up and didn't build cases against
them with anything beyond coerced evidence.
There was plenty of coercive interrogation carried out by the
military, too, John. Don't try to pass the policy decisions this
administration imposed on the professionals as problems that
started with people in the field..
Heck, we just learned a couple months ago about the National
Security principles - the AG, the National Security Advistor, the
VP, the SecDef - directing and even "choreographing" interrogation
practices.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:03AM|#
I don't think they waterboard at Supermax, or play loud music to keep the inmates up at night, or turn off the AC in 100 degree weather.
|6.23.08 @ 10:04AM|#
I can't understand how SuperMax could possibly pass the cruel
and unusual test. At least, as a punishment, and not just as a
security measure.
The Quakers abandoned their solitary-cell "reform prison" model a
century and a half ago because of its obvious cruelty.
|6.23.08 @ 10:06AM|#
"Supreme Court's Boumediene decision, which held that the
government can't just snatch people up off the street, then hold
them forever without ever giving them a trial."
That is NOT what the Court's holding was, or what the dissent
argued.
|6.23.08 @ 10:07AM|#
"Wah! We don't want to reveal our evidence!" Tough shit.
That's the price you pay for getting a conviction.
In the case of most of these, it's not the evidence per se
that the government does not want to reveal, it's the sources and
methods of obtaining that intelligence. Unlike what some of the
most paranoid fantasists believe, the NSA can't catch everything,
and prefers to keep people guessing as to what it can. See for
example the refusal to demonstrate the evidence from the Venona
decrypts against the Rosenbergs et al. Of course, the fact that
they were convicted anyway without the most damning evidence may
well help your point, Fluffy
But since they didn't follow a model like Nuremburg, or the
existing court martial rules like the UCMJ, what are the courts to
do?
Not like Nuremberg wasn't made up on the spot either. Have you ever
read the history of the trials, and especially the Tokyo War Crimes
trial? They were kangaroo courts in the sense that the rules were
made up on the spot and the punishments pre-decided according to
victor's justice. The judges not from the victorious countries
voted for reduced punishments, and in the case of the Indian judge
Radhabinod Pal, for acquittal, but of course the deck was
stacked.
Every single one of the people we're talking about could be
declared POWs, unilaterally by the military, tomorrow, and as long
as they were treated like POWs, they would have no habeas rights,
no change to prove their innocence, nothing. There terrorists don't
have any rights beyond those of POWs. The entirety of their legal
rights stems from the fact that they are facing trials and
punishment as criminals.
Wait joe, so you're saying that we could (and should?) declare them
POWs and hold them indefinitely without trial? I think that that's
problematic as well. POWs at least have the hope of negotiations
with the enemy, prisoner exchanges, and eventually an end to the
war. The nature of this conflict means that treating them as POWs
means indefinite imprisonment with no foreseeable end. That's
something that ought to be avoided IMO. Legally, many of them could
have been shot on sight too (including for being out of uniform)
but I'm recommending that either.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Joe, thats pretty much why I'm for the death penalty. Because the two options with people like Rudolph and the Unabomber are solitary confinment or death, and as John said death is probably more humane.
|6.23.08 @ 10:07AM|#
NNG,
You get waterboarded or interrogated, and then it stops, and you're
back in a cage, with a view, able to talk to other people, feel air
on your face, just like you're a real human being.
People left to rot in one of those SuperMax holes are being
psychologically tortured every minute of every day for years. Fine,
comparing one minute of Supermax to one minute of waterboarding
doesn't look so bad, but taking it in the totality, it' s
awful.
|6.23.08 @ 10:08AM|#
"There was plenty of coercive interrogation carried out by the
military, too, John. Don't try to pass the policy decisions this
administration imposed on the professionals as problems that
started with people in the field.."
Don't let the people in the field off the hook. Whether it be CIA
or Military Intelligence, all of those people have the attitude of
"I am the professional here and this is what we need to do". None
of them can be trusted and all are in need of adult supervision. No
question they didn't get it under Bush, but part of that reason was
because the Bush people panicked after 9-11 and let the CIA and the
like convince them that various practices were operational
necessities.
|6.23.08 @ 10:09AM|#
"You get waterboarded or interrogated, and then it stops, and
you're back in a cage, with a view, able to talk to other people,
feel air on your face, just like you're a real human being."
No one at GUTMO has ever been waterboarded there. The CIA
waterboarded people and at least one of them, KSM is at GUITMO, but
the waterboarding was done God knows where but not at GUITMO.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Thats true, joe. I guess its a more subtle form of
torture.
Still, my biggest beef with Gitmo is the fact that its becoming an
international symbol for anti-American crackpots to rally around.
It shoots our credibility to hell.
We can't get after Putin or the Chinese anymore, because all they
have to say is "Gitmo", "secret prisons" and "torture".
|6.23.08 @ 10:13AM|#
John Thacker,
They were kangaroo courts in the sense that the rules were made
up on the spot and the punishments pre-decided according to
victor's justice. They were real courts, in the sense that
they had rules of evidence and sufficient protections for the
defense that it was possible to defend one's self. There were
numerous acquittals and dismissals.
Wait joe, so you're saying that we could (and should?) declare
them POWs and hold them indefinitely without trial?
Nope. I wrote that only to make the point that the "these people
have more rights than POWs" argument is bunk.
I think we should try them before courts martial as directed by the
UCMJ, or something very close to it.
|6.23.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Don't let the people in the field off the hook. Whether it
be CIA or Military Intelligence, all of those people have the
attitude of "I am the professional here and this is what we need to
do". None of them can be trusted and all are in need of adult
supervision. No question they didn't get it under Bush, but part of
that reason was because the Bush people panicked after 9-11 and let
the CIA and the like convince them that various practices were
operational necessities.
There was too much pushback from the CIA and military, including
resignations and public statements, for me to believe that.
No one at GUTMO has ever been waterboarded there. The CIA
waterboarded people and at least one of them, KSM is at GUITMO, but
the waterboarding was done God knows where but not at GUITMO.
I know that's the official line. I just don't believe it. Once upon
a time, the official line was that we hadn't tortured anybody.
Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 10:16AM|#
POWs at least have the hope of negotiations with the enemy,
prisoner exchanges, and eventually an end to the war. The nature of
this conflict means that treating them as POWs means indefinite
imprisonment with no foreseeable end.
In the case of Afghani nationals, I think they could at least look
forward to release if/when the Kabul government establishes control
over the entire country.
Right now the Taliban is still active in the field, so Afghani
POW's would be out of luck. If the Taliban toughs it out in the
field, their POW's stay. Even if it's 10, 15, 20 years.
The situation is more complex in the case of the nationals of third
countries, because there is no one around to "surrender".
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Joe, that's pretty much why I'm for the death penalty.
Because the two options with people like Rudolph and the Unabomber
are solitary confinement or death, and as John said death is
probably more humane.
I'm with Nietzsche on this one, who said that one should always
give a capital offender the option to kill themselves, as opposed
to rotting away in prison. Always leave it to their choice,
though!
Nietzsche, the first modern Libertarian.
|6.23.08 @ 10:17AM|#
I don't think they waterboard at Supermax, or play loud
music to keep the inmates up at night, or turn off the AC in 100
degree weather.
The sensory deprivation involved in SuperMax (at least at its
highest levels, as it is relaxed very slightly for good
behavior) is much worse, IMO, than anything at Gitmo. And it goes
on near-constantly, 23+ hours per day in a small room. (The other
hour allows some exercise, but again without human contact.)
The punishments tolerated in prisons (not just in the US but
worldwide) are horrible. Any claim that Supermax is a country club
compared to Gitmo is ridiculous; the claim could more easily be
made the other way around.
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Fluffy-
Thats actually really a good idea. At least the state isn't really
commiting murder, then.
|6.23.08 @ 10:29AM|#
"The punishments tolerated in prisons (not just in the US but
worldwide) are horrible. Any claim that Supermax is a country club
compared to Gitmo is ridiculous; the claim could more easily be
made the other way around."
Not to mention the fact that the ordinary high security prisons in
this country are run completely by gangs. There is no way someone
could go to a maximum security prison in this country with the real
desire to go straight and succeed. You would have to join some kind
of gang to survive and they are going to expect you to commit
crimes for them. Then once you get out who is going to hire you?
Unless you have family connections you are screwed. With the
borders open, why would anyone hire an ex-con when you could hire a
hard working Mexican peasant?
No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:36AM|#
IIRC the Commies started labor camps because Marx believed they
would be more humane than simple confinement.
Well, that didn't work out to well either.
Theres no really humane kind of punishment.
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 10:57AM|#
There's no really humane kind of punishment.
Well, I'd say a short 'time-out' followed by a stern admonishment
is pretty humane. As to its effectiveness...well, not for nothing
but I didn't turn out to be a homicidal maniac. Take that one data
point for what you will.
Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 11:08AM|#
I'd like to break from ganging up on John to reiterate my
initial observation:
John Yoo wrote for the Cato Institute??!?!?
|6.23.08 @ 11:09AM|#
John Yoo wrote for the Cato Institute??!?!?
That betrays a pre-9/11 interrobang in your thinking.
gmatts|6.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#
My favorite part of the link to "The Rule of Law in Wake of
Clinton" is on page 161. There, Yoo writes that during Clinton's
use of force in Kosovo the House passed a resolution supporting the
troops, but not the mission. Also, he writes that the House passed
a bill that barred the use of funds for deployment of troops to
Yugoslavia unless it was specifically authorized by Congress.
I believe that both of those are examples of the types of
activities that the Republicans now accuse people of essentially
engaging in treason in regards to our troops, and the usurping of
commander-in-chief powers by Congress in attemtping to tell the
Executive how it can spend money on wars.
|6.23.08 @ 11:46AM|#
For a monarchist or an aristocrat, it is not hypocrisy to claim
that it's ok for your guy to exercise certain powers when in
office, and not the other guy.
For people who believe in the rule of law and/or democratic
legisimacy, that would be a massively hypocritical position in
which to find yourself.
But if you accept the premise that your guy or guys are entitled to
power merely by virtue of their being born into it, or chosen by
Jesus, or belonging to the right party, it's perfectly
legitimate.
|6.23.08 @ 12:23PM|#
joe,
Ah, but he's not making monarchist divine-right arguments. His
arguments are at least ostensibly being made in the context of a
constitutional republic.
BakedPenguin|6.23.08 @ 12:32PM|#
John Yoo wrote for the Cato Institute??!?!?
Strange world.Michelle Malkin
once wrote for reason. Reading the piece, I suspect she's
come to a change of heart.
|6.23.08 @ 12:36PM|#
That's a hell of a find, BP!!!
Wow. Are we sure there's not another Michelle Malkin?
|6.23.08 @ 12:36PM|#
It's not surprising that yet another supposed libertarian (or follower of some other ism) lost his way after 9/11. There are plenty of examples of that.
Bingo|6.23.08 @ 1:01PM|#
You guys don't understand. 9/11 changed everything. That's why
we call it by the date instead of "The WTC attacks," because we can
never forget or the terrorists will have won.
9/11
Nine eleven.
Never forget.
BakedPenguin|6.23.08 @ 1:03PM|#
C\P - Years ago, I once referenced her in a post, because I'd read that in the print version (and that was all I knew of her). I was, of course, greeted by bemused and generally unappreciative comments.
|6.23.08 @ 1:11PM|#
What the hell was the Administration afraid of?
They were afraid that they wouldn't be allowed to torture.
Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 1:15PM|#
I was, of course, greeted by bemused and generally
unappreciative comments.
Wow! They were quite a bit more mellow back then, I guess.
Les|6.23.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Not to mention the fact that the ordinary high security
prisons in this country are run completely by gangs. There is no
way someone could go to a maximum security prison in this country
with the real desire to go straight and succeed.
That was more true, at least here in California, up until the
nineties, when the prison guards' union became immensely powerful.
I have a dear relative who's been in prison for nearly 30 years (on
a 15 to life sentence and after 24 years of perfect behavior and 3
separate approvals for release by the Board of Parole Hearings,
each of which has been vetoed by the governor for no reason
whatsoever) and I visit him every other month for regular lessons
on prison life in California.
Back when gangs ran San Quentin, there were programs in place for
prisoners wanting to rehabilitate themselves. Now that guards "run"
the prisons, the programs are mostly gone, thanks, in large part,
to their lobbying.
So, ironically, an inmate had a better chance of rehabilitation
when the gangs were in charge.
Rakune|6.23.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Hey John, can you provide a link? IIRC What you wrote is the
exact opposite of what happened at Nuremberg.
"At Nuremburg mere membership in the Nazi Pary or the SS or other
certain organization made you guilty."
|6.23.08 @ 2:41PM|#
C-Potty,
(heh)
I'd say that Yoo's uber-expansive reading of the president's
inherent powers moves him well into constitutional monarch
territory. If you believe the only check on the Big Man's power is
elections, not the law, then you are a monarchist, even if you
favor an elected monarch.
Poland used to have an elected monarch. He was still the king.
|6.23.08 @ 4:09PM|#
C-Potty
Oooh, that's creative. Haven't heard that one since second grade
(at St. Joe's School, no less).
Rakune|6.23.08 @ 7:00PM|#
OK First question was too hard. How many Nazi party members or
SS memebers were acquitted? Zero or not zero? Was the verdit based
on what they did (the acussed actual actions) or what group they
belonged to? Was every NAZI Hung? Was every SS Member
executed?
"At Nuremburg mere membership in the Nazi Pary or the SS or other
certain organization made you guilty."
|6.23.08 @ 11:02PM|#
"How many Nazi party members or SS memebers were acquitted? Zero
or not zero? Was the verdit based on what they did (the acussed
actual actions) or what group they belonged to? Was every NAZI
Hung? Was every SS Member executed?"
Kurt Kiesinger, chancellor of West Germany from 1966-1969, was
assistant chief of radio propaganda in the foreign ministry in WW2,
and an unenthusiastic Nazi party member (joined in 1933, but
refused to join a Nazi association of lawyers later on.) He was
interned by the allies after the war but cleared by allied and
German denazification courts.
Baldur von Schirach, head of the Nazi Youth movement, was given 20
years.
Albert Speer, architect and Nazi minister of armaments and war
production (which included slave labor from concentration camps),
got 20 years.
Karl Carstens, president of West Germany from 79-84, served in an
anti-aircraft unit in WW2 but was cleared by an Allied
denazification court.
Johannes Stark, a Nobel-winning physicist, was a supporter of
Hitler and was sentenced in 1947 to 4 years in a labor camp.
The main Nurnberg tribunal acquitted 3 of the officials being
tried, 4 were sentenced to prison terms of 10-20 years, 3 got life
sentences, and 12 were sentenced to hang.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245