The Chilling Effect of Expecting CIA Agents to Obey the Law
The New York Times says Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to reopen cases involving alleged CIA abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan—a decision that reportedly prompted "a profanity-laced screaming match" last month in which CIA Director Leon Panetta threatened to resign—"is politically awkward...because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda." Obama's pre-emptive wish to move forward and not look back always seemed ill-advised to me, given the implication that even egregious violations of the law would be overlooked to avoid the appearance of partisan vindictiveness and/or the risk of undermining morale at the CIA. According to the Times, at least some of the cases Holder is re-examining involve clear violations of the federal ban on torture (which applies to Americans outside as well as inside the United States). "In examples that have just come to light," it says, "the C.I.A. [inspector general's] report describes how C.I.A. officers carried out mock executions and threatened at least one prisoner with a gun and a power drill." Under federal law, torture includes "severe mental pain or suffering" caused by "the threat of imminent death." If investigating CIA agents for violating this law has an unacceptable "chilling" effect on their ability to do their jobs, as former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith suggests in today's Washington Post, so does the law itself.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Since when did we concern ourselves about the "morale" of a public sector enterprise?
-
Oh, please. Senator Red Foreman tried to prosecute Jack Bauer for the very same things and we all saw how that worked out.
-
The most egregious examples are "threats" of torture?
This is like using 2 live crew as a test case for the first amendment.
Please, please find a better example. -
Of course, once the state withers away a la deranged libertarian vision, there won't be any law except the one that can be enforced by the strongest plutocrat. Sorry to rain on your cult.
-
Wait, prosecuting people for violating the law has a chilling effect on their ability to do their job? So Smith is basically admitting the CIA is breaking the law routinely to get their jobs done? Or am I missing some subtlety here?
-
The solution is to send this a jury - that is how potential breaking of the law works. Any obstructionism in that regard is disrespectful of the rule of law.
-
Under federal law, torture includes "severe mental pain or suffering" caused by "the threat of imminent death."
A quibble: torture is acts "specifically intended to cause severe mental pain or suffering. So, they will need to show that the alleged torturers specifically intended to cause, etc. That should be interesting.
But, really, the timing on this announcement and the new FBI enhanced interrogation squad are curious, Methinks Obama is trying to rally/distract his base. Look for the special prosecutor's report to come out in September/October of next year, just in time for midterms.
It will be helpful to their case if they can introduce credible evidence that the alleged victims in fact suffered severe mental pain or suffering. That should be interesting as well. -
Oops, clicked too soon. Provided the defendants are allowed a full defense - introduction of memos, etc. outlining acceptable techniques, the results of the interrogations, and so forth, I have no problem sending this to the jury.
-
Of course, once the state withers away a la deranged libertarian vision, there won't be any law except the one that can be enforced by the strongest plutocrat. Sorry to rain on your cult.
Congratulations, Daniel! You're the ONE MILLIONTH DUMBASS who doesn't know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism!
Warty, tell Daniel what he's won... -
Three cheers for partisan vindictiveness. Bring on the indictments.
And no surprise, Obama backers -- he's still going to rendition prisoners to other countries to be tortured. -
Sweet'n'Low, that's just the latest incarnation of Edward, so just like in real life, he wins nothing.
-
Not even an ass-raping from Warty, because both of them would enjoy it too much.
-
Congratulations, Daniel! You're the ONE MILLIONTH DUMBASS who doesn't know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism!
You mean including all you guys who can't tell the difference between taxation and theft? -
Goddammit this pisses me off. Government employees and agents are bound by the law, despite the reluctance of the Nomenclatura to admit it.
They (at any level of government) cannot be allowed to act without consequences, inside or outside our borders. Otherwise, we are merely serfs. -
Go update your LJ, Tony.
-
STFU, Edward / Tony / Daniel!
-
So I have begun looking for another place to live. This time I hope to actually do it and not listen to any objections. I am exhausted, in physical pain and at the end of my rope. I just want peace and quiet and to stop wasting my money on constant torture. It has taken its toll on me lately and I don't see things ever improving. Empty words are useless to me and I feel apathetic. There has to be somewhere I can live in peace for 500 a month in this town. I complain about not being able to sleep and I get told to take sleeping pills as if there is something wrong with me. In my life I have learned that when people stop listening to you there isn't really anything left to say.
I'd be depressed if I was dating a troll too. -
Dear Tony,
Eat a dick.
Warmest Regards,
Tomcat -
STFU person I don't agree with! I MEAN IT STFU! *masturbates over Atlas Shrugged again*
-
Splenda,
Tony likes fat, pasty rednexxx - have you been asleep on these here pages lately? -
The solution is to send this a jury - that is how potential breaking of the law works. Any obstructionism in that regard is disrespectful of the rule of law.
Torture must be illegal.
The ticking bomb scenario can and should be dealt with through jury nullification.
If an agent of the state really, truly believes he or she must torture a suspect to prevent a calamity, then he or she should do it and then throw themselves at the mercy of the court. -
If we are a nation of laws and not men, then the only proper course is to investigate and prosecute if the crimes can be established beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prosecute the Bush Criminal Enterprise for its crimes is not an acceptable solution. But neither is going for the hired help. If they go for the agents, then Cheney should be right in the dock with them.
-
If they go for the agents, then Cheney should be right in the dock with them.
Um, why? -
Definitely ex-boyfriend. Check the dates.
Apr. 9th, 2007 | 04:06 pm
Still working in the same place. Still living in the same apartment. [info]tulsanate has been fun to have around. Honestly I'm not sure where I'd be without him right now.
[11 Aug 2007|01:05pm]
What can I say but that too little is too late. I got an email from an ex about two weeks ago asking me to please write him and him suggesting that maybe we were meant to be. Part of me wanted to respond but the majority of me forbid the rest of me from doing so out of total fear of my feelings for him. I dare say that forbidden love is the hardest to overcome. The hardest to let go of and the hardest to live with silently. Yes I feel deeply for him. Yes I long for him. Yet life has taught me that we must all live and learn from the things which happen to us. Just as the borg of star trek adapted to the phaser fire of the federation weapons in First Contact I have had to adapt as well to the emails of those who would beguile me. -
Tony likes fat, pasty rednexxx - have you been asleep on these here pages lately?
Oh, sweet innocent trusting TAO. That's not what tulsanate necessarily looks like. People post fake pictures of themselves all the time. Warty doesn't really look like Burt Reynolds, you know... -
A radical law enforcement proposal - If violent crimes were committed, those who committed them should be prosecuted.
If my proposal is accepted, it would apply to the CIA, the U.S. Military and LEOs along with the general populace.
Think it'll fly? -
Oh, sweet innocent trusting TAO. That's not what tulsanate necessarily looks like. People post fake pictures of themselves all the time. Warty doesn't really look like Burt Reynolds, you know...
OTOH, I do look like Karl Malden's ugly brother. -
Think it'll fly?
We seem to be having a little trouble getting it off the ground, lately... -
Splenda,
Sorry, man, I am really naive about stuff. Now that I think about it, whose pic is that? I don't think anybody in Oklahoma is that attractive, IIRC. -
I don't think anybody in Oklahoma is that attractive, IIRC.
Yet another thing you're wrong about. The Oklahoma gays are some of the hottest around, for some reason. It's been verified by my hot Colombian friends, and they know their hot gays. -
Tony likes fat, pasty rednexxx
Do we have another Reason romance on our hands? I hear Massachusetts wedding bells for Tony and Steve Smith. Stay tuned, dear readers. -
OTOH, I do look like Karl Malden's ugly brother.
It's the lighting in Detroit. I look like Karl Malden's drunk ugly brother when I visit. -
Threatening someone with death in order to extract information is torture. OK, I can buy that.
Does this mean a prosecutor threatening someone with the death penalty, and offering to waive it if they plead guilty, is involved in torture? For a (possibly false) confession, at that? -
I don't think anybody in Oklahoma is that attractive
Is he attractive? Who knows? He's a got severe case of Internet Disease.
Definition for TEH FILTER'D:
Internet Disease
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
A.K.A. "MySpace Voodoo" or "The Angles", Internet Disease means displaying old, faded, blurred or otherwise non-descript photographs of oneself, taken with bad lighting and at awkward angles, on the Internets in order to make you appear more attractive to people online than you are IRL.
How Internet Disease Works
An internet diseased photo is taken with the subject standing at an angle, thereby hiding his or her obesity. Also the contrast of the photo is increased dramatically in order to obscure unattractive facial features, like acne and the chin.
By using such techniques, which are dealt with in greater detail below, individuals afflicted with the Internet disease are able to conceal the fact that they are an unattractive person, and instead become a figure envied by others. In a desperate attempt to look like the victims of Internet disease, admirers use the very same techniques as the admiree(s), thus further propagating the disease.
In 2004, the World Health Organization released statistics showing that over 9,000 teenage girls in the United States alone suffer from Internet disease (ID), over half of which have led to disappointing meetings with IRC and AOL boys. The paper also claimed that ID is especially dangerous because desperate men far too often end up having unprotected sex with female ID sufferers anyway, leading to the birth of many ID inherent babies, causing the problem to live on. The WHO has suggested the immediate use of condoms and sterility surgery for all men on the Internets, as well as fallopian-tying for all ID female sufferers. -
Does this mean a prosecutor threatening someone with the death penalty, and offering to waive it if they plead guilty, is involved in torture?
That sure would set an interesting precedent. -
An unused drill and an unused gun? Yawn.
-
"...because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda."
Let me see here...Health Care proposal bogged down, near failure...poll numbers plumetting...timing seems about right for a new CIA revelation kiddies!
"oh look! Something shiny!" That ought to keep the press focused on Bushitler! -
"""Does this mean a prosecutor threatening someone with the death penalty, and offering to waive it if they plead guilty, is involved in torture? For a (possibly false) confession, at that?"""
Not really apt. Now, if you put a gun to their head, or placed them in the electric chair, or straped them on the table for an injection, and told them you would stop if they plead guilty, you would correct. The prosecution can not give you the death penalty, they can seek it, but getting it is not up to them. -
Warty doesn't really look like Burt Reynolds, you know...
What?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOO... -
Provided the defendants are allowed a full defense - introduction of memos, etc. outlining acceptable techniques, the results of the interrogations, and so forth, I have no problem sending this to the jury.
The memos aren't relevant because John Yoo does not have the authority to unilaterally make law.
Irrelevant evidence should be excluded.
Unless I also can be allowed to defend myself against any charge by producing a letter from a lawyer saying that my conduct would not be illegal.
The "results" of the interrogations should also be excluded as irrelevant. No one embarking on a course of torture can possibly know what the outcome will be in advance. And the "fruits" of the torture are irrelevant to the illegality of it. Should I be allowed to defend myself against a fraud or bank robbery indictment by showing that I used some of the money to buy food for orphans? No. -
Does this mean a prosecutor threatening someone with the death penalty, and offering to waive it if they plead guilty, is involved in torture? For a (possibly false) confession, at that?
Damned good question. Prosectors piling up charges and over charging to get defendents to waive their right to a jury trial is a big fucking problem in this country. I believe it's been addressed here -
-
The memos aren't relevant because John Yoo does not have the authority to unilaterally make law.
They're relevant to the mens rea of the defendants, Fluffy. The statute has a "specific intent" requirement. -
I'm not defending the CIA agents. Hopefully justice will prevail in their cases. However, the charge of partisanship has some grounds. Reason has reported on a recent rendition under Obama's rule. I worry that Obama is going to focus on digging up dirt about the Bush administration to publish whenever he needs a popularity boost rather than stopping renditions and torture from happening again.
-
The memos aren't relevant because John Yoo does not have the authority to unilaterally make law.
Irrelevant evidence should be excluded.
What counts as relevant should be construed very broadly in a defendant's favor, no? The entire course of the interrogation, both pre and post "torture", strikes me as prima facie relevant.
The memos giving guidance on torture techniques should be admissable on two grounds:
(1) As noted above, as a defense against 'specific intent' required by the law.
(2) Because any citizen should be entitled to rely on legal advice or guidance given by the government. If I ask the IRS, or CMS, or any other agency, if I can do X, and they say yes, then they shouldn't be able to prosecute for following their advice. -
Fist of Etiquette | August 24, 2009, 2:49pm | #
Oh, please. Senator Red Foreman tried to prosecute Jack Bauer for the very same things and we all saw how that worked out.
I normally wouldn't watch 24 if you held my eyes open with toothpicks, but if Bauer got a foot stuck up his ass, I might spare the time. -
Government employees and agents are
bound byabove the law, despite the reluctance of theNomenclaturacitizens toadmitrealize it.
They (at any level of government)cannot beare routinely allowed to act without consequences, inside or outside our borders.Otherwise,we are merely serfs.
Fixed. -
(2) Because any citizen should be entitled to rely on legal advice or guidance given by the government. If I ask the IRS, or CMS, or any other agency, if I can do X, and they say yes, then they shouldn't be able to prosecute for following their advice.
That would be allowing ignorance of the law to be a defense. BTW, you *are* responsible for following tax laws to the letter even if you get misleading advice from the IRS, so I don't know where you're coming from with that. -
Because any citizen should be entitled to rely on legal advice or guidance given by the government. If I ask the IRS, or CMS, or any other agency, if I can do X, and they say yes, then they shouldn't be able to prosecute for following their advice.
Where were you during my trial? -
An unused drill and an unused gun? Yawn.
A lengthy list of real crimes, with links to far worse examples, by Jacob Hornberger:
The Pentagon's Plunge into Barbarism
-
That would be allowing ignorance of the law to be a defense. BTW, you *are* responsible for following tax laws to the letter even if you get misleading advice from the IRS, so I don't know where you're coming from with that.
Look, I get the point, but really? This is an argument in favor of simple laws that are relatively easy to follow, but what do you want out of people? If you cannot rely on the promulgating agency, or the administrative agency, or the lawmakers, or the interpreters, how would one act?
I realize some wit is going to say "That's the whole point!", but what's done is done and you cannot retroactively say "you should have realized that this was illegal". -
If we're going to carve out an exception to the "ignorance is no defense" maxim, it better not be in cases of fucking torture! There's a bit of a difference between listing a deduction that you're not really allowed to take on your 1040, and telling a prisoner you're going to kill and/or rape them and their family members if they don't answer your questions.
-
In other words, yes, I can sympathize with people who get screwed by the fact they haven't read and understood all the legal ramifications of the public-library-full of code books and regulatory rulings of all the overlapping jurisdictions they spend time in or do business with people in. But there is a practical reason why ignorance of the law cannot become a defense; because it can always be feigned.
And sorry, I've got no sympathy whatsoever for torturers, following orders or otherwise. The mantra you and RC are proposing would make torture legal for all practical purposes once an administration official writes a memo saying it is. The ban on torture is too important to allow such a regime to stand. -
In what would probably be a case-of-first-impression, you need more than "the law is what the jury says it is". Maybe you don't - anyway, the specific intent requirement creates a pretty high evidentiary burden. Convictions are doubtful - impossible.
-
But there is a practical reason why ignorance of the law cannot become a defense; because it can always be feigned.
I'm not advocating ignorance of the law as a defense, I'm advocating reliance on guidance given by the government as a defense. Are you seriously saying that if I consult with the government on what I am allowed to do, and do what they say, I should nonetheless be subject to prosecution?
The mantra you and RC are proposing would make torture legal for all practical purposes once an administration official writes a memo saying it is.
I could see some kind of reasonableness requirement for the defense. In the cases of regulatory "guidance" followed by prosecution that I have seen, reasonableness wouldn't be a problem. How this would play out in a torture case would depend on the case. -
Maybe you don't - anyway, the specific intent requirement creates a pretty high evidentiary burden. Convictions are doubtful - impossible.
They would be very difficult to obtain, especially if the alleged victim could be portrayed as a hardened terrorist trained to withstand "ordinary" interrogation techniques.
At that point, you would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant specifically intended to cause this terrorist, who is indifferent to things that would cause most of us distress, "severe mental pain or suffering." Tough. Very tough. -
you would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant specifically intended to cause this terrorist, who is indifferent to things that would cause most of us distress, "severe mental pain or suffering." Tough. Very tough.
Barring an outright admission of sadism on the part of the torturer, I would ask, "Why the fuck was he doing it, if he had no reasonable expectation that it would be sufficiently stressful to force the "interviewee" to spill the beans?"
Come on, boys, try harder. -
I'm not advocating ignorance of the law as a defense, I'm advocating reliance on guidance given by the government as a defense.
You're contradicting yourself; the latter is a subset of the former. The meat of the "reliance on govt advice" defense is that the defendant did not know what they were doing was illegal, ie, ignorance of the law.
And it's pretty sickening to see you guys identifying torturers with people who made an obscure mistake on their tax forms.
Are you seriously saying that if I consult with the government on what I am allowed to do, and do what they say, I should nonetheless be subject to prosecution?
It's not a matter of "should", it's a matter of "is". And while it may seem heartless, that's as it should be; otherwise connected individuals could get away with breaking any law they wish by getting a pal in the govt to give them bad advice. This danger is especially great when it's one govt actor getting exculpatory bad advice from another. -
A question for RC and TAO: how are any federal laws restricting government actors going to be enforced if a permission slip from their superiors is sufficient to beat the rap?
Especially you, TAO: weren't you crooning the other day about how the rule of law demanded that we put innocent people to death if the exculpatory evidence comes out after their appeals have run out? Where's your obsession with the rule of law now? -
this is the rule of law, Tulpa. If the interpreting agency is the one giving you the instructions, you, too, would feel rightfully screwed if, later on, the government said "oh, never mind - takesies backsies!"
And, by the way, I was "crooning" no such thing.
I would ask, "Why the fuck was he doing it, if he had no reasonable expectation that it would be sufficiently stressful to force the "interviewee" to spill the beans?"
because "sufficiently stressful" is not the same as "severe mental or physical anguish".
Look at statute and tell me that even you, likely a layman at the law, could not find a way to make that stretch to any uncomfortable situation imaginable.
-
I'm not advocating ignorance of the law as a defense, I'm advocating reliance on guidance given by the government as a defense. Are you seriously saying that if I consult with the government on what I am allowed to do, and do what they say, I should nonetheless be subject to prosecution?
Well, I could live with citizens being prosecuted for following government instructions so long as the government official that provided the instructions is also prosecuted as co-defendant. -
Prosecutors already examined these cases and they advised against indictment.
Now comes these maniac Leftists who are of questionable sanity.
If anyone thinks THIS DOJ is really seeking justice , they're deluded. This is the DOJ that dropped charges against the Black panthers after they already won.
These fuckers want to break the CIA. And they're after Cheney. -
this is the rule of law, Tulpa. If the interpreting agency is the one giving you the instructions, you, too, would feel rightfully screwed if, later on, the government said "oh, never mind - takesies backsies!"
Hey, the rule of law sucks sometimes, like when exculpatory evidence comes out after your death penalty appeals run out, and a bunch of legalistic assholes tell you your only option is to beg the governor for clemency. I'll note that you didn't even address my argument about govt agencies handing out permission slips when they want someone to break the law, or the absurdity of treating torturers like citizens who made boo-boos on their 1040s. I'd hate to have to say you're conceding my points and showing the childish nature of torture defenders.
because "sufficiently stressful" is not the same as "severe mental or physical anguish".
Let me get this straight: these are hardened terrorists who need to be treated with enhanced techniques because they're so damned tough and resistant to pain; but we can get them to talk without giving them severe anguish. -
If the interpreting agency is the one giving you the instructions, you, too, would feel rightfully screwed if, later on, the government said "oh, never mind - takesies backsies!"
And another thing -- when did the White House Counsel become the official "interpreting agency" of the laws against torture? -
I'm not advocating ignorance of the law as a defense, I'm advocating reliance on guidance given by the government as a defense.
You're contradicting yourself; the latter is a subset of the former.
Not really.
Advocating for a subset is not advocating for the whole. I am not saying ignorance of the law should be a defence for all people in all circumstances. I am saying that good faith reliance on a government official as to what the law is should be a defense. There's a very real and easily discernable difference.
I'm comfortable that good faith and reasonableness could keep the abuse of this by the well-connected within bounds. Certainly, I worry less about them getting away with something (what are the odds the well-connected won't get away with it anyway?) than I do about someone acting in good faith getting whipsawed.
And another thing -- when did the White House Counsel become the official "interpreting agency" of the laws against torture?
I was under the impression that the interrogation guidelines had been vetted by Justice.
Let me get this straight: these are hardened terrorists who need to be treated with enhanced techniques because they're so damned tough and resistant to pain; but we can get them to talk without giving them severe anguish.
In Tulpa-world, any successful interrogation of a suspect who isn't cooperative is torture. The evidence that its torture? It was successful.
Who said anything about inflicting pain? I was talking about the ability to withstand stress. -
I'm comfortable that good faith and reasonableness could keep the abuse of this by the well-connected within bounds. Certainly, I worry less about them getting away with something (what are the odds the well-connected won't get away with it anyway?) than I do about someone acting in good faith getting whipsawed.
I missed the part in all my ethics classes about the theoretical, never mind practical, possibility of torturing someone in good faith. The very concept strikes me as...retarded. But maybe my mind just isn't as subtle, having not done all that lawyering and such. Please, carry on. -
I'm comfortable that good faith and reasonableness could keep the abuse of this by the well-connected within bounds.
That depends on who has the burden of proving good faith (or bad faith). It's going to be a bear to prove such a thing (as you and TAO were gloating above).
And the well-connected aren't the only problem; you also have the problem of superiors wanting their underlings to quietly break existing laws enacted to keep govt actors under control (you know, like what the Bush administration was doing with torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc).
In Tulpa-world, any successful interrogation of a suspect who isn't cooperative is torture.
No. You're chasing your tail on this one; you can't reconcile the two defenses you're offering for the interrogators. It has nothing to do with the definition of torture. -
Before this thread even began, before I knew any of the technical details of the law or the facts of the case, I was sure that TAO and RC Dean would think the case against the interrogators was weak for some sophisticated, technical legal reasons. I must be a gorram psychic.
-
I missed the part in all my ethics classes about the theoretical, never mind practical, possibility of torturing someone in good faith.
"Good faith", in this context, being a legal concept that John the Interrogator, did not, in good faith, believe that he was torturing someone, and therefore does not meet the requisite mens rea to form the special intent required by the statute.
Next time you want to be a smarmy smartass, know what you're talking about.
Tulpa -
How are they irreconcilable? if John the Interrogator believes he is putting Achmed up to stressful-yet-legal interrogations, how is that even remotely a case that he must also think he is torturing Achmed? -
I was sure that TAO and RC Dean would think the case against the interrogators was weak for some sophisticated, technical legal reasons. I must be a gorram psychic.
Golly!
Alternative explanation: R C Dean is an attorney and I am in law school, so maybe we both have a little more understanding about the nuance involved? -
Correction:
"Good faith", in this context, being a legal concept that John the Interrogator, did not, in good faith, believe that he was
torturingcausing server physical and metal anguish to someone -
*severe
Dammit! -
John the interrogator should know what Tulpa thinks is torture and not do that. It's a simple principle, really.
-
Descartes was wont to crucify stray dogs to a table so that he could cut them open while alive. Since, by Descartes definition, dogs were automatons of the flesh--meat machines, if you will--they were incapable of feeling pain. Therefore, when Descartes pounded nails into their limbs and split open their bellies, the noises of pain and howling terror the dogs would make were a mere coincidence, an epiphenomenon at most.
What's the difference to the dog if Descartes was acting in good faith? And how can it be defined away in that situation from self-serving willful ignorance? -
Alternative explanation: R C Dean is an attorney and I am in law school, so maybe we both have a little more understanding about the nuance involved?
If it's just a case of my ignorance and your expertise, then which side you guys come down on should appear as random as a coin toss to a layman like myself. Doesn't seem to work that way to me. -
TAO:
Important correction! After all, even an idiot knows that when you threaten to rape someone's wife and kill their kids and put a power drill to their forehead and threaten them with a gun, and strap them down to a board and fake-drown them dozens of times, and lock them in a freezing room, and hand them from their arms until their shoulders pop out, you are torturing them.
But people might in that situation be fuzzy as to whether they are causing their victim anguish.
No, wait, that's still fucking stupid. -
And sorry, I'm not going to curl my tail and hide under the couch when faced with the legal expertise of a guy who writes stuff like this:
R C Dean | June 9, 2009, 2:19pm | #
I thought the Solicitor General had a very interesting point, one that seems to be completely ignored by the Justice Department.
These people are foreign nationals. There is no basis under US immigration law for admitting them into the country, even to face trial. In fact, US immigration law specifically bars them from entering the country due to their association with terrorism.
So, just what is this guy's immigration status? What kind of visa does he have?
I'd love to see someone from ICE step in, arrest him as an illegal alien, and deport him to Tanzania.
Tulpa | June 9, 2009, 2:31pm | #
Bullshit. Foreign nationals are extradited to the US to stand trial all the time.
Seriously, Bush dead-enders, let go. If you're building the GOP around defending the policies of the Bush administration, you're going to have single-digits in the Senate within 10 years.
...and so on, as RC takes further absurd positions to try to defend the Bushian stance that Gitmo detainees cannot be tried in the US. I'm sure he's a good lawyer in his practice, in the same way that Paul Krugman is a damned fine economist when it comes to specialized research in non-politically-charged topics. -
Props to Sugarless for the philosophy example win.
-
I fail to see the value of the CIA anyway. Why do we spend billions of dollars on intelligence gathering? All this torture and all this expense and what did the US get out of it?
The CIA has been wrong consistently. From wildly overestimating the USSR's economic prowess to its ability to prevent acts of terror. Yes, they are incompetent, but I'm not sure that it is possible for intelligence agencies to be competent. Possible exception might be an actual war such is The Big War.
I'd abolish the CIA in a heartbeat and replace it with NOTHING. -
Should individuals that went beyond what was deemed legal by the office of legal council be prosecuted?
-
Tupla -
If it's just a case of my ignorance and your expertise, then which side you guys come down on should appear as random as a coin toss to a layman like myself. Doesn't seem to work that way to me.
You made this too easy - there's always a third possibility than their bias, and it's your bias in your thinking.
Not saying which one is more likely, just saying that by admitting you know what they say before hand does not necessarily mean they're biased. You might have biased thinking coloring all of your ideas about certain things and therefore still see others as biased who may in fact be truthful. -
In examples that have just come to light,