Harvey Silverglate on Torture Prosecutions
Writing in The Boston Globe, civil liberties lawyer and Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate argues that prosecuting CIA employees for using interrogation techniques endorsed by the Justice Department during the Bush administration "would make very 'bad law,' and would create a legal precedent that would haunt our criminal justice system for generations":
A CIA agent, operating in good faith, could readily consider such DOJ advice to be a binding legal opinion that he could safely follow. And in our legal system, based on an ancient Anglo-Saxon moral and legal tenet incorporated into our own criminal codes, a wrongdoer may be punished only if he knowingly and intentionally committed an act that he believed to be illegal.
Silverglate also warns that prosecuting John Yoo or the other DOJ lawyers who said waterboarding and other coercive techniques did not qualify as torture "could, and likely would, wreak havoc on principles that civil libertarians should seek to protect." A year ago, I noted Silverglate's analysis of the obstacles to prosecuting Yoo, the main one being that it would be very hard to show he offered his legal advice in bad faith, especially given his pre-existing views on executive power and national security.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is also the the Nuremburg Principle to consider, which states, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
While this may be a problem for military personal (go to jail for obeying orders, or got to stockade for disobeying orders), no such conundrum exists for civilians. If a policy is immoral you do not follow it. Period.
Litigating the former party in a political system has a lot of potentially "bad" things tied to it. The precedent alone is probably the most dangerous. You are in power now and you disagree with the previous practices, move on and change it. Don't go after the losing party to prove a point.
This doesn't even consider the people who would be investigating sat in Congress and let such actions happen. Most of the loudest voices now were not even whispers of dissent then. This is a can of political crap that anyone with a little common sense would want nothing to do with.
Really? How many people are punished because "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
The trouble with that is, how do you know it's immoral? More to the point, how do you know what will be judged to be immoral at some time in the near future? The Nuremberg principle can easily lead to "up against the wall when the revolution comes". Abortionists? Anti-abortionists?
I think that the welfare state is immoral and unconstitutional. When I become president, I am going to prosecute any Obama administration official that implemented those programs.
Not only that but it would lead to the situation wherein nobody would dare hand over power peacefully. If the defeated can be determined to be guilty, why would they ever submit to a contest?
A CIA agent, operating in good faith, could readily consider such DOJ advice to be a binding legal opinion that he could safely follow
What a CROCK OF SHIT. This is what passes for libertarianism these days?
Just following orders is a viable defense? Really? Well then someone better tell all the people at Nuremberg that we prosecuted, cuz apparently that defense is NOT valid when other countries try it.
So to sum things up, it's ok to break the law as long as I have a nicely written memo in legalese explaining how it's not really lawbreaking because someone wrote a memo saying so. Fucking Genius!
Litigating the former party in a political system has a lot of potentially "bad" things tied to it.The precedent alone is probably the most dangerous. You are in power now and you disagree with the previous practices, move on and change it.
Are those "bad" things worse than basically wiping your ass with the rule of law, and not punishing people who engaged in criminal behavior? And how does moving on and changing policy, prevent future administrations from not engaging in torture?
What kind of nonsense is this. We don't want to prosecute criminals from the previous admin because some general "bad" things might happen? What?
So now apparently politics trumps everything? Criminal acts have been reduced to policy disagreements?
Hey guess what...sometimes it's not politics, sometimes there are bad people in political positions and those people need to be held accountable.
One problem with this approach is that the Bushies have constructed a clever little responsibility-absolving machine - you can't prosecute the lawyers because they were only giving advice and not actually doing anything. And you can't prosecute the people who did do things, because they were just following advice from the lawyers.
Today the two-step is used to evade responsibility for torture - what will it be used to cover for tomorrow?
Not only that but it would lead to the situation wherein nobody would dare hand over power peacefully. If the defeated can be determined to be guilty, why would they ever submit to a contest?
And how can we get to a situation where people don't in fact break the law, and are afraid of doing so because there are consequences to breaking the law, even despite a nicely written memo pretending that it's ok to break the law if the President says so?
And can people please stop pretending like prosecuting and obtaining a conviction are the same thing. The defeated will only be determined guilty in a court of law, not on the mere say so of the next administration.
Where do these torture apologists come from? We shouldn't go after people who break the law if they are part of an outgoing administration?!?! Really? What the fuck kind of nonsense is this?!
This isn't a "just following orders" defense.
That defense presumes that the individual knew the action was illegal, but his obligation to follow orders overrode his ethical obligation to uphold the law.
In this case, the individuals involved were assured by the government's lawyers that their actions WERE legal. They weren't being ordered to do illegal things, they were being told they were legal.
It's a fine point, but an important one.
And how can we get to a situation where people don't in fact break the law, and are afraid of doing so because there are consequences to breaking the law, even despite a nicely written memo pretending that it's ok to break the law if the President says so?
The nicely worded memo didn't say "it's okay because the president said so". It said "you are not breaking the law".
After being explicitly and repeatedly assured by lawyers that you're not breaking the law, I do think it is problematic to prosecute you, from a libertarian standpoint.
Totally and completely off topic, but what's up with espn?
Go to http://espn.go.com/ and then hit:
up arrow, up arrow, down arrow, down arrow, left arrow, right arrow, left arrow, right arrow, b, a and then press enter a few times..
Wtf?
Can we finely get around to prosecuting the people who wrote the polices allowing Ruby Ridge and Waco to happen?
Ruby Ridge should be easy, wasn't the policy of "kill any adult with a gun" blatantly illegal?
Let's draw the circle wide on this one....
It does not rule out impeachment for Bybee.
In this case, the individuals involved were assured by the government's lawyers that their actions WERE legal. They weren't being ordered to do illegal things, they were being told they were legal.
It's a fine point, but an important one.
No, it's not. Since when is a lawyer's opinion a legitimate substitute for a conscience, never mind a notion of what is and is not allowed so simple every five-year old can ably articulate it?
"I just got off the phone with my lawyer yesterday, and he said I could hit a guy so long as it wasn't below the belt."
How far do you think that would fly in a court as you were being booked for assault?
This isn't a "just following orders" defense.
That defense presumes that the individual knew the action was illegal, but his obligation to follow orders overrode his ethical obligation to uphold the law.
Actually it is. So what if the orders come with a note saying "this order is legal".
Torture is illegal, and it has been for many years. Just because all of a sudden Jay ByBee and John Yoo write a nice little note that says "torture is legal" doesn't make it so.
Are you really saying that you can't prosecute any government official as long as a lawyer is willing to write a note saying "this lawbreaking action is legal" ?
I don't want to live in that country. I want to live in one where despite the nice memo, people rise up and say "pardon me, but torture has been illegal for quite some time, and unless your memo has been tested in court, I think I will not engage in it."
Fuck that. Prosecute everyone. Start at the top but don't stop till you hit the bottom.
No more torturers, no more torture.
"would make very 'bad law,"
Why?
"' and would create a legal precedent that would haunt our criminal justice system for generations""
So where is the bad part?
"could, and likely would, wreak havoc on principles that civil libertarians should seek to protect."
By that same logic prosecuting Nixon would have done so. After all, Nixon, did not himself break into the Watergate.
It's worse than that. Since the Bush administration briefed and consulted with leaders of the opposition party, who didn't find any policies remiss, therefore consensus was that this shit is legal.
Now go prosecute the guy with the bucket. It's completely fucked and at a minimum a full investigation and airing of the facts is required. Convictions may not be possible but prosecutions should be considered.
Brandybuck makes a good point with the first point. CIA officers can quit at a moments notice.
By the time you hit bottom, everybody's guilty. All of this business:
ironically assumes you determine the law and get to judge everyone else. Usually we're in the opposite situation.
The only way to get to a situation as described above would be where nobody ever did anything, because anything might be illegal. Or...if we got to a situation where the law and opinions about the law didn't change for centuries at a time.
About 10 GIs were convicted, doing what they thought was following orders. Are they now exonerated? Where does following orders and going over the top begin? Oh, I get it. Torture is not torture, and they also had WMD too. Bastards !
Looks like Easter eggs or something. It only works on IE, not Firefox.
Torture is illegal, and it has been for many years. Just because all of a sudden Jay ByBee and John Yoo write a nice little note that says "torture is legal" doesn't make it so.
The note didn't say "torture is legal". It said "this isn't torture".
You're saying that the Justice Department can prosecute people for following it's own advice? These were the DOJ's own lawyers. Whose lawyers should the CIA have relied on, if not the DOJ?
That's like saying that if you explicitly ask the government if it's okay for you to build a house on a particular spot, and they say yes, then when the next administration comes along they can prosecute you for building your house on a spot that you should have known was illegal anyway. How are you supposed to know what's legal if you can't trust the explicit assurances of the Department of Justice itself?
"And in our legal system, based on an ancient Anglo-Saxon moral and legal tenet incorporated into our own criminal codes, a wrongdoer may be punished only if he knowingly and intentionally committed an act that he believed to be illegal."
Really????
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133106.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133106.html
You're saying that the Justice Department can prosecute people for following it's own advice?
Why not? The IRS can.
"I just got off the phone with my lawyer yesterday, and he said I could hit a guy so long as it wasn't below the belt."
How far do you think that would fly in a court as you were being booked for assault?
Not your lawyer. The government's lawyer. The same government that would presumably haul you into court and charge you with assault. The DOJ would be prosecuting people for following advice it itself issued under a previous administration.
You're saying that the Justice Department can prosecute people for following it's own advice?
Why not? The IRS can.
And we object to this, yes?
The problem with what most of you are saying is that everyone would have to rewrite every law and every order to suit their own personal conscience and everyone's conscience is a little different. There would be no rule of law, only a plethora of personal opinions. You have to be able to rely on the opinions of the designated experts or you will never be able to do anything.
I also have a problem with criminalizing an opinion because you disagree with it. The left has been trying to do this for years and it is despicable.
The political show trial is the hallmark of any great revolution. It's gonna make for great television, and it has the added advantage of bringing the rest of Obama's bullshit agenda to a screeching halt.
" and it has the added advantage of bringing the rest of Obama's bullshit agenda to a screeching halt."
I hope you are right about that. Bring on the political show trials!!!!!
Water boarding is not torture. It's uncomfortable and it's scary, but it ain't torture. This is the one issue where the mainstream libertarian stance makes me want to scream, "LIBERTARIANS SUCK!"
Whose lawyers should the CIA have relied on, if not the DOJ?
Since when has it been true that the DOJ or any lawyer whatsoever was endowed with the power to authoritatively interpret what the law is? Where did this bullshit come from? They give *advice*. Sometimes, *advice is wrong*. Bad advice does not indemnify against the consequences of bad acts. Your lawyer tells you you may beat up someone, and that advice was bad, it is not a defense against a charge of assault if you follow that advice. Period.
As an interrogator, you are supposed to know your business, and that includes knowing the legal contours of what you may or may not do. None of those laws fucking changed prior to torture being implemented as acceptable interrogation policy by the government (starting as early as 2002). Many of the justifications are, when you look at the time-line, *after the fact*, which means they didn't give a fuck whether what they were doing was actually legal or not, they just wanted an opinion after the fact for cover. So, they don't even have the bad excuse that they were just doing what they were told was legal.
When the bad advice was given with the advisor's knowledge that the advice is bad, the advisor is complicit in the bad acts so encouraged. So fuck the lawyers too, who damn well knew better (either that, or we should believe they've improbably forgotten everything they ever know about history and law).
Water boarding is not torture. It's uncomfortable and it's scary, but it ain't torture. This is the one issue where the mainstream libertarian stance makes me want to scream, "LIBERTARIANS SUCK!"
And now I want to scream "You're morally retarded!"
Seriously, fuck you, apologist for evil.
What ticks me off the most is if this was the year 2000, and some American soldiers were off being waterboarded in some other country, every single person who is now dithering on whether waterboarding is torture would be on the other side of this.
Every single one.
Are those "bad" things worse than basically wiping your ass with the rule of law, and not punishing people who engaged in criminal behavior? And how does moving on and changing policy, prevent future administrations from not engaging in torture?
Yes they can be worse than the damage already done. That was the point. The policy is the problem. The original intent has been butchered in the name of policy, note your choice of words there was not law. Policy is what you write when you do not want to be held liable and want to be able to change the rules at will. Policy is nothing more than a nonbinding plan. So your solution is to make new policy and go after those that lost. Ideally they should be imprison, they should have been tried when they committed the crimes and dealt with, but they weren't. The people in place to challenge them rolled over and stepped out of the way. Have you noticed how the same sorts of power grabs are occurring today under this administration? Do you really want a vindictive witch hunt being conducted by a group that has not had complete power for the last couple of decades conducting a witch hunt? Do you really think any of the current administration's and Congress' saber rattling is centered around what is right or lawful? It's a third world gotcha game and no administration in the last 50 years has the morals to not abuse it. I'd rather not set the precedent for the next asshole to get the office.
You want to prevent future infractions by giving the current body the power and ability to go on a witch hunt. That doesn't sound the slightest bit dangerous to you? Drop the hate for the past administration and think clearly. Do not assume the last group was worse than this group or future groups. Don't arm the future dictator with a present precedent.
This is all a broad look. The legal ramifications are just as scary.
And how do you find that out again?
Hazel is 100% correct here, folks.
You're drawing a false analogy. The applicable definition section (defining torture) reads:
an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
Now, if you have the statute-enforcers telling you that the methods you're using will not cause "severe physical or mental pain", you cannot have intended your actions to do just that.
As an interrogator, you are supposed to know your business, and that includes knowing the legal contours of what you may or may not do.
Yes. This is why you consult lawyers. To ask them what you may or may not do. In particular, this is why you consult the Department of Justice, if you REALLY want to be ultra assured that the advice you are getting is in accordance with the law, and not just some random guy's opinion. Because the Department of Justice is the very agency that will be prosecuting you if you break the law. It should be pretty freaking ironclad that if the government itself assures you that what you're doing is legal, that they aren't going to turn around and decide its illegal later on.
Moreover, this stuff required an act of congress and an executive order to make it illegal, remember? If it was already illegal, why the need for legislation and executive orders?
You're skirting pretty damn close to ex post facto prosecution on this.
You can go the other way with police interrogation and the ability of the police to lie and inflict mental anguish on the person being interrogated in order to get a confession or gain trust. (i.e. telling the suspect someone died when they did not)
Torture should not be state sponsored at any point in time. On an individual level it gets a little gray with the whole, "you take my wife and kids..." scenario.
Torture is illegal, and it has been for many years. Just because all of a sudden Jay ByBee and John Yoo write a nice little note that says "torture is legal" doesn't make it so.
Reminds me of that story about Lincoln and a 5 legged dog. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Calling what was done "torture" does not make it torture.
The Ultimate Libertarian Litmus Test! Do we bend the law to find ways to prosecute?
Now, if you have the statute-enforcers telling you that the methods you're using will not cause "severe physical or mental pain", you cannot have intended your actions to do just that.
"Don't trust your eyes and ears. Trust the lawyer in Washington."
I'm a fairly regular guy. I have reason to believe that if I tie a guy down and mock-drown him a few hundred times even while he repeatedly begs me to stop and thrashes around desperately, I'm gonna do the guy some serious and permanent psychological harm. Call it a human intuition. This intuition is buttressed by my own imagining how I might be effected were the same done to me.
If someone then showed me a letter that a lawyer wrote that said "no, your intuition is wrong, actually the guy will be just fine, don't worry about it", it is reasonable or justified for me to change my beliefs about what will transpire? At the least such an assertion by that lawyer is counterintuitive, and by itself lends no rational reason to believe it.
Your argument is essentially that the epistemological standard of "lawyer from Washington asserted in a letter" is sufficient to *contravene* a person's own intuitive understanding plus any evidence (which is copious and available) to the contrary?
That's pretty fucking stupid.
So your entire case rests on the hypothetical defendant incriminating himself?
And it is not my argument, El. It's what the law is.
*shrug*. I don't know, but it certainly goes a long way, doesn't it? And IMHO, it eviscerates "beyond reasonable doubt".
The Ultimate Libertarian Litmus Test! Do we bend the law to find ways to prosecute?
How about, do we claim to be the ideology opposed to the expansion and abuse of state power while bending over backwards to excuse the government FUCKING TORTURING PEOPLE?
Jesus Christ, the worst thing about libertarianism is the libertarians.
Come on people. The law is for little people, us. You can't seriously want to apply it to government workers. They might occasionaly so no the king.
Yes. This is why you consult lawyers. To ask them what you may or may not do. In particular, this is why you consult the Department of Justice, if you REALLY want to be ultra assured that the advice you are getting is in accordance with the law, and not just some random guy's opinion.
Way wrong. When they were *trained* they were taught these things; accepted practices of a profession, which are accorded with relevant law and time-tested.
The problem was someone then wanted to change the accepted practices to include things that were previously excluded from those practices. Since the canons of their profession outline pretty clearly what they can and cannot do, it wouldn't even occur to them to ask whether it was legal *unless they had a suspicion that it might be illegal in the first place!*
This is classic CYA-seeking, and it's crap. Any trained interrogator would know to ask themselves "hey, why was this once not a part of our repertoire? What was the reason for that? Why didn't we waterboard before?" And we know the answers to that, too; the Japanese and Cambodian armies used waterboarding, and they were convicted of war crimes because of it; such acts were universally recognized as torture.
And hey, fuckheads, if you can honestly say to me that you'd be perfectly cool with an American POW being interrogated by a foreign power using these "enhanced interrogation methods", then so be it. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this hairsplitting is after-the-act excuse-making and not reasoning you would ever otherwise apply, least of all to an American in a similar circumstance.
I read that they tortured that one guy like 188 times. I wonder how much intelligence they got out of the 25th time, 50th, 100th, 150th.
The terrorist won. Now we are no better than they are. We just don't behead people in public.
The bottom line is you can't go to a fucking lawyer to tell you the guidelines of common human decency. If you are going to a lawyer to justify your genocide or torture, you probably should not work for the government.
And on this issue:
A CIA agent, operating in good faith, could readily consider such DOJ advice to be a binding legal opinion that he could safely follow. And in our legal system, based on an ancient Anglo-Saxon moral and legal tenet incorporated into our own criminal codes, a wrongdoer may be punished only if he knowingly and intentionally committed an act that he believed to be illegal.
....who the fuck cares? Mens rea for us little people was destroyed 30 years ago with that neat little fantasy called "constructive Possession."
As an interrogator, you are supposed to know your business, and that includes knowing the legal contours of what you may or may not do.
--------
And how do you find that out again?
Go to church.
No, not that church, to a different one.
The witch hunt crowd is displaying the same shortsightedness as the last administration. Forget all the legal aspects and the political crap and ask yourself if you want this administration trying the last and the next administration trying this one and so on. Do you really think such a precedent wouldn't be abused for political reasons? Seriously try to curb the hate just long enough to ponder the potential scenarios and ramifications of such actions.
What good could possible come from such prosecution.
Prosecution is a political ploy, and a stupid one, since the Democrats knew about and condoned waterboarding. If I had heard the Democrats railing relentlessly against this since the beginning, it'd be different, but they haven't. Nancy Pelosi lied. Not surprising, but it's still disappointing we live in a country where politicians can do or say anything with impunity. If we want to end all torture and anything that approaches torture, then so be it, but this prosecution business is hypocritical and totally dishonest.
Why is everyone assuming that the memos accurately depict how the interrogations actual happened? Convenient how the CIA videotapes of the interrogations happened to be destroyed...
Why think things were any different than they were at Abu Graib? Let me remind those here, people went to jail for that stuff.
Laws aren't based on "moral intuition". They are laws.
If "moral intuition" was sufficient to know what's legal or not, there would be no problem with ex-post-facto prosecution.
Also, I think you are really kidding yourself about your ability to know what kind of treatment would be legally and/or morally permissible in an interrogation room without consulting a lawyer.
It's kinda self-flattering, but not particularly honest.
This is what we call "begging the question". The issue before us is whether what was done was torture under the definition of that word under Title 18.
What needs to happen is the breakup of the institutional feedback loop that allowed this to happen. The CIA presents facts to the DOJ; the DOJ writes "based on these facts, this is not torture, and here's why", and the CIA then does the act.
That smells like a fancy ad hominem.
I don't know, but it certainly goes a long way, doesn't it?
No, it goes nowhere. Nobody, whispering in your ear, or writing you letters, or anything else can absolve the basic responsibility to obey your conscience, and specifically to *not* act when there is a legitimate question in *your* mind that what you are being asked to do could be morally and legally wrong.
And IMHO, it eviscerates "beyond reasonable doubt".
Someone telling you something is OK eviscerates reasonable doubt? Come. Fucking. On. "If the guy in the lab-coat tells you a 240 volt shock is perfectly safe, well, he's a doctor, so we'll go with that." Authority can never ameliorate personal responsibility except in the very limited case where there is reason to believe that the authority would directly harm *you* for not complying with its dictates. Which is, it should be belabored, so very not the situation the CIA interrogators were in; they were free to walk away.
Why is it that I have to argue this on a Libertarian site? What is this, bizarro-world?
That smells like a fancy ad hominem.
Not quite. I'm arguing that the persons engaged in the line of reasoning they espouse now would not endorse that same line of reasoning had the objects in question been immaterially altered. Hence, they don't believe in the logical foundations of their own argument. Thus, they must be advancing that line of logic for some other obscured reason.
It's an argument about the persons, not an argument because of the persons. The first is absolutely legitimate in logic, the second is the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
This kind of emotional bloviating and rank moral equivocating is irritating. Troy, are you like, a teenager? Torture is antithetical to American values, but it isn't like this is an "all of the sudden" kind of thing.
Tiger cages, anyone? Wanna hear about what went on in the Japanese internment camps?
America is still the greatest nation on the planet and the most moral, as far as I am concerned, but it isn't like we were Angels up until GITMO.
Also, I think you are really kidding yourself about your ability to know what kind of treatment would be legally and/or morally permissible in an interrogation room without consulting a lawyer.
I'm not sure I would know the set of all things that *would* be allowed legally. But from the set of all things possible, I'm pretty confident I could pretty accurately assign what of those possible things belong in the category of "all things that would *not* be allowed" morally.
When it comes to humane treatment historically, legal notions have closely tracked moral ones. Hence, any variance should be viewed with skepticism, and when in doubt, err of the side of "not allowed".
It just requires you to be a human being who is not a sociopathic dick. If that's self-flattery, it is a mean sort. "Hey, guys, I'm not a sociopathic dick!"
you're a smart guy but you don't know the law from a hole in the ground.
Look, Hazel already said it, but we'll try again: who was it who was going to be prosecuting CIA agents who tortured? The DOJ. Who was it who wrote the interpretation memoranda concerning those activities? The DOJ.
Again, you want to go on and on about "obeying one's conscience" because you cannot argue that they broke the law.
Not quite. I'm arguing that the persons engaged in the line of reasoning they espouse now would not endorse that same line of reasoning had the objects in question been immaterially altered. Hence, they don't believe in the logical foundations of their own argument. Thus, they must be advancing that line of logic for some other obscured reason.
I've argued against ex post facto prosecutions on these boards twice before. First in the case of Lori Drew, second in the case of the AIG bonus reverse-taxation.
I've also argued against the double jeopardy prosecution of Ivan Demjanjuk.
Care to come up with a counter example where I've argued someone should be prosecuted for something that wasn't technically illegal or wasn't considered illegal by the government at the time?
I also like how you truncated the quote from Title XVIII:
(A) Torture.- The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
It specifically includes the use of torture as an interrogation technique. Please if you'd be so kind, what could they possibly believe they were doing such that it doesn't cause: "severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information".
They were inflicting mental suffering. The victim was in their custody. They were doing it to attempt to obtain information.
Wow. I suppose you'd have to be a lawyer to argue out of that, yeah? Everyone else knows better.
Care to come up with a counter example where I've argued someone should be prosecuted for something that wasn't technically illegal or wasn't considered illegal by the government at the time?
I'll do you one better and invite you to do so in the most famous case ever. Tell me, Hazel. Were you against the Nuremburg trials? Were those not legitimate prosecutions because what they were being prosecuted for was legal under German law at the time they were occurring?
Hazel Meade-
You're argument is well-stated but absolutely full of shit. The legal opinions issued by the DOJ were just that-- OPINIONS. The authors admitted as much themselves. From the Bradbury to Rizzo memo of 5/30: "Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion..."
I fail to see how your argument prevents the president from ordering criminal activities with impunity so long as he can find a lawyer who is willing to approve of them "in good faith." This isn't a hypothetical question-- this is what happened. The arguments advanced in the memos are absurd. Do you contest this characterization? or do you think that DOJ lawyers should be able to write a get-out-jail-free card whenever they or the president see fit?
America is still the greatest nation on the planet and the most moral, as far as I am concerned, but it isn't like we were Angels up until GITMO.
And it's not like presidents were all on the up and up prior to Nixon.
They believed they were doing interrogation techniques that did not cause severe physical or mental harm.
I truncated it because the part about "obtaining information" was assumed and irrelevant to the discussion, else they wouldn't be called "INTERROGATION techniques".
Or, alternately stated:
Richard Nixon: "It's not illegal if the president does it."
Hazel Meade: "It's not illegal if the president can find a lawyer to opine that it might not be illegal."
Again, you want to go on and on about "obeying one's conscience" because you cannot argue that they broke the law.
No, they broke the law too. The law cannot be read in a consistent way that supports what some lawyers in the DOJ said it did. In order to read it that way, one has to ignore history and contort statute and case law to grotesque degrees.
The question here has been not whether what they did was illegal, but whether the CIA officers could be reasonably expected to know that what they were doing was illegal. They fail *even there* is my point on this thread.
They were professionals with a well-established professional corpus, one which was violated by what they were asked to do. This is a point that you both have been avoiding: interrogators know their business, and so why would they *ever* ask if something was legal unless they had reasonable doubts themselves? And then, further, why would they have any reason to believe that the lawyers from the DOJ would have the capacity to render an authoritative answer to the question? And then finally, after they did receive the DOJ opinion, did they allow that opinion to override both their original doubt and the established reasons for the existence of the canons and contours of prior practice?
They believed they were doing interrogation techniques that did not cause severe physical or mental harm.
I truncated it because the part about "obtaining information" was assumed and irrelevant to the discussion, else they wouldn't be called "INTERROGATION techniques".
LOL. OK, so let's say they purported to believe that. Then, would it be appropriate for those techniques to be used by law enforcement in the states? Would it be appropriate for other states to use those techniques against Americans? Unless they could answer yes to both those questions, they didn't actually believe that they were simply "interrogation techniques".
Were you against the Nuremburg trials? Were those not legitimate prosecutions because what they were being prosecuted for was legal under German law at the time they were occurring?
The Nuremburg trials went after the political leadership, not the low-ranking officers. But yeah, I think a good argument can be made that it was a case of "victor's justice". No doubt lots of war crimes were commited by the allies that were never prosecuted.
This might be one of the few cases where a civil suite against the government makes more sense than a criminal suite against a specific government agent.
Nuremberg isn't a perfect legal analogue (although morally it is close). It is my impression that the Nuremberg prosecutions focused on acts that were not classified as crimes at the time that they were committed. Torture (at Gitmo and elsewhere) WAS defined as a crime by statute. The question is whether DOJ lawyers can nullify a law by cleverly applying a ludicrous analysis "in good faith."
The interrogators may or may not have had reasonable doubts about the legality of what they were doing, but that is a far cry from stating that what they were doing was illegal beyond a reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, it cuts the opposite way.
Look, there are a lot of questions in all this that cut to the very core of how government works:
1. If you ask the prosecuting agency for an interpretation on a statute, is it permissible to rely on that interpretation?
2. Does the law exist in the ether, to be discovered and plucked out, or is it a human institution, written and governed by humans?
3. What act or set of acts rise to the level of torture? Is waterboarding (done the American way, which is, AFAICT, very different from the Japanese 'water cure') torture in and of itself? What about combinations of stress positions, temperature extremes and sleep deprivation?
The "canons and contours" of interrogative techniques are not dispositive with respect to the question concerning Title 18. They are not even dispositive of whether CIA agents knew or should have known what was illegal. They are probably dispositive of what an interrogator knows to be immoral, but that is a different question.
What? I'm sorry you see this as so black-and-white, and that's unfortunate for you, but I'm going to need a much better argument than "the history on this says otherwise". So far I have about 200+ pages of memos that cut against your argument. I'm willing to hear counters to them.
Um, appropriate? No. Probably would violate Federal Civil Rights laws and State criminal/civil rights laws. Not sure of your point here.
The question is whether DOJ lawyers can nullify a law by cleverly applying a ludicrous analysis
Please, feel free to come down from Olympus at let us peons know in what ways the analyses were "ludicrous". I'd love to hear it.
'the Democrats knew . . . Nancy Pelosi lied'
Ah, yes, well then, I hadn't previously realized that Democrats are implicated in this behavior. The interrogations *must* have been legal, if the Democrats approved!
The Democrats are such shining moral exemplars that they would *never* endorse anything illegal.
No need to descend from Olympus-- just read the torture memos and you'll have a pretty good idea of what I mean by "ludicrous."
how lame, aspushkin. "The torture memos are lame...I know this because I read them. Why are they lame? go read them and you'll see!"
LAME.
I fail to see how your argument prevents the president from ordering criminal activities with impunity so long as he can find a lawyer who is willing to approve of them "in good faith." This isn't a hypothetical question-- this is what happened. The arguments advanced in the memos are absurd. Do you contest this characterization? or do you think that DOJ lawyers should be able to write a get-out-jail-free card whenever they or the president see fit?
As I see it, this is a problem with the executive branch having too much influence over the judicial branch. Legal advice provided by the DOJ should come from some independent body, not political appointees.
Probably would violate Federal Civil Rights laws and State criminal/civil rights laws. Not sure of your point here.
On what grounds would they violate those laws? Could it be...(gasp!) because they're torture?!
And you didn't address the American being so treated by a foreign power.
Angry Optimist,
You asked: 1. If you ask the prosecuting agency for an interpretation on a statute, is it permissible to rely on that interpretation?
Again, the memos never claimed that the proposed actions were legal-- in fact, they explicitly pointed out that a court might find differently. This is a bit different than if you were to ask the gov't whether it was acceptable to erect a structure, were told that it was, and then were prosecuted for it. The DOJ never said "Go for it," but rather something closer to "We think a court wouldn't convict over this."
AngryOptimist,
Point taken. My response was a bit lame... more coming momentarily
On what grounds would they violate those laws? Could it be...(gasp!) because they're torture?!
*GASP*....NO! Probably NOT! For one, I seriously doubt there are many state statutes concerning torture. Two, the reason they probably (and I'm just speaking off the cuff here; I have no idea of the content of Civil Rights statutes) violate civil rights because in your hypo the actions were committed against Americans.
So, it's *GASP*, it's not a gotcha, El! Don't you think you would have heard it by now if it was?
And you didn't address the American being so treated by a foreign power.
Because it has nothing to do with Title 18? Because you think it's a slam-dunk gotcha moment and it's not?
Are you trying to say that I would be more outraged if these things were done against Americans than I am now? Yeah, probably...sue me, I'm a big fucking bigot. Damn. Would I support ex post prosecutions in that case either? Nope.
The DOJ never said "Go for it," but rather something closer to "We think a court wouldn't convict over this."
Then you need to decide with whom you are angry. The lawyers who, in your words, made "ludicrous" analyses but told CIA agents "caveat emptor, motherfuckers" or the CIA agents who relied on the memos.
If the lawyers gave significant disclaimers, then the CIA agents cannot be said to have reasonably relied on the memos. If they didn't give enough disclaimers, then the lawyers might be on the hook but the agents probably aren't.
Your choice.
The Nuremburg trials went after the political leadership, not the low-ranking officers.
Not true. Of specific interest is the Doctor's Trial, the Judge's Trial, and the Einsatzgruppen Trial.
But yeah, I think a good argument can be made that it was a case of "victor's justice".
Only insofar as there were allied atrocities that were not prosecuted.
No doubt lots of war crimes were committed by the allies that were never prosecuted.
No doubt. But the million dollar question relevant *here* is whether any lack of prosecuting Allies for war crimes makes anything the Germans did *any less* war crimes. And the answer there is obviously "no".
1. If you ask the prosecuting agency for an interpretation on a statute, is it permissible to rely on that interpretation?
Short and simple answer: No, absolutely not. The DOJ is not part of the judiciary. The DOJ is not a metanational jury.
Saying that people who rely on DOJ opinions have a get out of jail free card is like saying that the DOJ should automatically win every case it brings before any federal court.
This should be especially true when the persons seeking advice are other officers of the government themselves. Basically you are granting DOJ employees the authority to write legislation protecting the acts of other executive branch employees, and then the right to pre-empt the judicial branch and acquit them at non-trials as well. So as long as the DOJ and the rest of the executive branch agree on a policy, the entire executive branch is utterly beyond the law in every respect.
This is made triply absurd since the office of the attorney general has been turned into nothing more or less than an extension of the White House counsel's office, and since the current President and Attorney General can openly describe their intention to obstruct justice and no one bats an eyelash.
And everyone who wants me to consider the possible ramifications of new administrations seeking revenge on outgoing officeholders - sorry, I'm not impressed by that any more. There may have been a time where a calculation of this kind could be performed, but that time is gone. The math of setting one administration's misdeeds against the possibility of long-term political harm only can work as long as no one knows this math exists. In the modern era, everyone now knows this argument will be offered and anticipates it, and we get disgusting spectacles like the last several years, where blatant obstruction is conducted to try to run out the clock on investigations of wrongdoing, under the hope that the next administration will "turn the page". The moral hazard created because officials now believe they can break the law and escape punishment due to "Broderism" among the political class now outweighs the potential harm of having politically motivated prosecutions.
Saying that people who rely on DOJ opinions have a get out of jail free card is like saying that the DOJ should automatically win every case it brings before any federal court.
Which would be true, if that's what anyone said. Unfortunately for most on the board, the torture statute requires a specific intent: to cause severe physical or mental harm. Given that these are ill-defined concepts in the statute, the DOJ memos (again, unfortunately for all of us) do go a long way towards imputing good faith to the CIA agents.
Then you need to decide with whom you are angry. The lawyers who, in your words, made "ludicrous" analyses but told CIA agents "caveat emptor, motherfuckers" or the CIA agents who relied on the memos.
If the lawyers gave significant disclaimers, then the CIA agents cannot be said to have reasonably relied on the memos. If they didn't give enough disclaimers, then the lawyers might be on the hook but the agents probably aren't.
Your choice.
IMO, the lawyers violated the canons of ethics and should be disbarred, whereas the actual torturers who, y'know, tortured were the criminals who should be prosecuted, as well as whoever (up the chain of command) ordered them to do so.
Evading the "a specific intent to cause severe physical or mental harm" is what requires the CIA interrogators to be blind, deaf, dumb idiots in order for them to be innocent of wrongdoing.
"He's screaming because it tickles."
"No, he really looks like he's in pain!"
"I swear, it only tickles."
"If you say so, Bob."
That has to be the thought-process for a person who actually sees a person go through the "technique". Blind, deaf, dumb, and should I add *credulous*, idiots.
Somehow, the FBI could tell that these interrogations were criminal, and they walked out of Guantanamo and refused to participate.
I'd also be a lot more impressed by the sad violin music being played in defense of the CIA here if I thought that any of the people involved actually gave a shit if their actions were illegal or not.
I'd also be a lot more impressed by the arguments offered by the torturer defenders on this thread if I thought for a moment they would oppose the next round of torture. You motherfuckers don't actually want to "move on" - you want torturers to escape justice, and you want torture to remain an available tool in the future. So go fuck yourselves. I'd be happy to see a "poisonous political environment" because maybe if this episode burns enough people badly enough it won't happen again in the future.
Again, the memos never claimed that the proposed actions were legal-- .... The DOJ never said "Go for it," but rather something closer to "We think a court wouldn't convict over this."
This is the DOJ we're talking about. The same entity that would responsible for bringing the case against them. These aren't just any lawyers.
Um, appropriate? No. Probably would violate Federal Civil Rights laws and State criminal/civil rights laws. Not sure of your point here.
According to you it wouldn't violate anything so long as the police officer got legal advice to the effect that waterboarding a suspect was legal.
Hazel Meade-
Is this an accurate statement of your position: If a lawyer or lawyers working for the department of justice indicates that an action may not be a crime, an individual should be immune from all criminal complaints pursued by the DOJ?
Looks like I need a friend who works at the DOJ...
IMO, the lawyers violated the canons of ethics and should be disbarred, whereas the actual torturers who, y'know, tortured were the criminals who should be prosecuted, as well as whoever (up the chain of command) ordered them to do so.
I would also like to add to the list of defendants that significant portion of the American public who demanded to know why Bush did too little to prevent 9/11. You know, those people who, in the following years, didn't really want to know how that big sausage Bush put between us and another attack was made, but who just knew they liked it there. Round them up and frog march them to the new Gitmo. (Wherever Obama ends up sticking that.)
AngryOptimist: Here is what is ludicrous about the torture memos' reasoning.
You wrote: "Unfortunately for most on the board, the torture statute requires a specific intent: to cause severe physical or mental harm."
The point is that it is inconceivable that the techniques outlined were intended for any other purpose. The only way of getting out of that is by going outside of the statute and defining "severe harm" in terms that would render legal a wide range of actions that have long been regarded as the epitome of torture-- and this is exactly what the DOJ lawyers did. While a "reasonable person" can perhaps differ on whether what our intelligence agencies did ought to be considered a crime in the first place, or whether it ought to be prosecuted in this instance, but I do not believe that a reasonable person can accept that the application of the techniques described in the memos was not aimed at inflicting severe physical and mental harm. Why else do such things if you don't want to inflict severe mental and/or physical harm?
Fluffy, I am on repeated record of opposing torture, so you can go fuck yourself, chumly. If you'll remember, I used to go round and round with Republicans on this very board about it, so fuck right off.
According to you it wouldn't violate anything so long as the police officer got legal advice to the effect that waterboarding a suspect was legal.
You cannot be this retarded. I never said anything remotely close to this.
Look, guys, sorry that we have to deal with nebulous and sometimes difficult-to-define words like "torture" "serious physical or mental harm" and "intent". I know this can be hard, but you cannot just stamp your feet and make the law do what you want it to do.
You motherfuckers don't actually want to "move on" - you want torturers to escape justice, and you want torture to remain an available tool in the future.
How about I want CIA agents to be treated with the same rights as every other US citizen? I.e. not to be prosecuted ex post facto. Not to be subjected to witch hunts or scapegoating for political purposes.
Or more generally, that there's something basically unjust about trying someone for actions they were assured were legal (in the opinion of the government agency responsible for enforcing the statute).
If a lawyer or lawyers working for the department of justice indicates that an action may not be a crime, an individual should be immune from all criminal complaints pursued by the DOJ?
Lawyers are bound by certain codes of ethics. They can be disbarred for giving dishonest legal advice.
Wanna have John Yoo disbarred? Go for it.
Actually that's probably the most appropriate and fair course of action. Have all the lawyers who wrote the memos disbarred.
What's ex post facto about it? If you are for letting the CIA off scott free then you should also be for letting the people in prison for Abu Graib out.
aspushkin - I like your analysis on that point, but you should have some more evidence. When you say that the actions were "a wide range of actions that have long been regarded as the epitome of torture", what is your evidence? Were there briefs, books on interrogation, former memos that delineated these?
I'd be interested to see.
Anyway, your opinion of "ludicrous" was a little bit much. Are they far-fetched? inventive? pushing it? Possibly and probably. But ludicrous? no.
For at least the third time: No government agency "assured" the CIA that their techniques "were legal." Laws regarding torture were on the books at the time that the alleged offenses occur. You can say "ex post facto" as many times as you like and it still won't apply to this situation.
What were the Soldiers involved in that convicted of, obi juan? Give you a hint: it wasn't Title 18.
If a lawyer or lawyers working for the department of justice indicates that an action may not be a crime, an individual should be immune from all criminal complaints pursued by the DOJ?
Rephrase:
If the DOJ gives someone a legal opinion that an action isn't a crime, then the DOJ should not subsequently prosecute them for that action.
Yeah, I agree with that.
So, would this apply to pilots who drop bombs on bad intel? They were told it was an arms factory....
Or how about the whole Balkans intervention? Why was that okay? We killed people! Is the UN or nato saying "go for it" enough? If so, why?
I guess my question is why is it okay to order a carpet bombing, but not torture? Geneva convention aside (it is just another document written by lawyers, right?) where is the logic here?
Honestly curious....
you want to know what the true-blue hangup here is, guys? If Congress really was briefed on what was going on, and deferred to the DOJ and CIA's interpretation of the torture statute, then that means waterboarding was NOT torture at the time.
Because it has nothing to do with Title 18? Because you think it's a slam-dunk gotcha moment and it's not?
Wrong again. The UN Convention Against Torture is a treaty to which the US is a full signatory. It is under this law (which according to Article VI of the USCon is the supreme law of the land just like all other ratified treaties) that my question matters. If the US were to object to the treatment of one of its citizens by another power due to waterboarding, they would do so under the provisions of this treaty.
If Congress really was briefed on what was going on, and deferred to the DOJ and CIA's interpretation of the torture statute, then that means waterboarding was NOT torture at the time.
"If Congress says it's not illegal, it's not illegal."
Is that your argument? Not "if Congress passes a law..." but "some selection of Congresscritters says...".
Really?
El, if you had actually read the caselaw on this, you would know that the Title 18 torture statute is designed to track the evolving nature of that very treaty.
Ergo, Title 18 = UN Convention Against Torture.
So, what is it you want to know? Whether I would support going after a country that did these same things to Americans? Is that your question?
Now that we have that established-- Is there a limit on this principle? Let's say the president decides that he wants to crucify my baby. Let's say that he can find a schizophrenic who is licensed to practice law and who believes "in good faith" that the constitution allows for the crucifixion of my baby. Would this be a crime?
It seems like quite a stretch, but is it really any less absurd (for anyone who has read the constitution) for John Yoo to base a truly bizarre legal analysis (I don't have the time at the moment to rehash the many logically absurd steps taken in those memos themselves-- the number of arguments that would get one laughed out of a first-year class in Pat Robertson's law school-- others have done this work, and I encourage you to dig around a bit) on the more ridiculous belief that the constitution empowers the executive to basically do whatever the fuck he wants in a state of (undeclared) "war" with a nationless group?
Sorry... quite a long sentence. I just don' think Hazel and AngryOptimist grasp the extent to which the torture memos' authors tortured logic.
"If Congress says it's not illegal, it's not illegal."
Actually, with the exception of constitutional issues, YES! Congress passed the torture statute, and Congress was briefed on how the torture statute was being defined, and Congress said nothing about that definition. So how could it violate the law if Congress knew about how the statute was being interpreted and said nothing about it?
It's called Agency Deference, and it's one of the canons of statutory interpretation (since you sound like you're a big fan of canons).
What's ex post facto about it?
Congress did pass legislation aimed at banning waterboarding and limiting other techniques a few times over the past several years. They were also limited by executive orders both under Bush and Obama.
If it was already illegal, then no legislation should be needed.
You can still make the argument that it was already illegal, but obviously if there was a weakness in the law that had to be amended by legislation, it certainly makes any case for prosecuting the agents involved for actions that occurred before the legislation was signed into law problematic.
AngryOptimist-- Now your just not making sense. The fact that congress was briefed does not in any sense alter existing statutes.
If Congress really was briefed on what was going on, and deferred to the DOJ and CIA's interpretation of the torture statute, then that means waterboarding was NOT torture at the time.
So the sense of Congress is now the law? Congress wasn't briefed, select congressmen were briefed. So it wasn't even the sense of Congress. The longer this goes on the more absurd you get.
aspushkin - who passed the statutes? Who said nothing when it heard about interpretations of those statutes?
The argument is two pronged:
1. Congress passed the Anti-torture statute. Congress was briefed about what was going on. Congress didn't care. Ergo, the interpretation of the statute was permissible in the eyes of Congress and this was not torture.
2. Further bolstering the point is Hazel's point: Congress passed legislation making these techniques illegal. Why do that if the actions violated the first statute?
Fluffy, I am on repeated record of opposing torture
Oh yeah? Well you pissed that all away tonight, buddy.
If you came on here and said, "I am on repeated record of opposing rape, but I don't think we should investigate rapists, or prosecute them," would you expect me to take you seriously?
Maybe you and John McCain can form a support group for people who used to be against torture but are now torture apologists.
you want to know what the true-blue hangup here is, guys? If Congress really was briefed on what was going on, and deferred to the DOJ and CIA's interpretation of the torture statute, then that means waterboarding was NOT torture at the time.
A small number of members of two committees don't get to undo the acts of previous Congresses, don't get to abrogate treaties, and don't get to create unwritten laws.
Personally I don't give a shit what Jay Rockefeller or Nancy Pelosi was or wasn't told. Was Ron Paul told? How about Patrick Leahy?
Congress wasn't briefed, select congressmen were briefed.
I don't even know why I'm throwing these pearls before swine like you, Obi Juan, but OK. you have yet to make anything approaching an intellectual contribution.
Regardless, was Congress aware or not aware of what was going on? you keep mentioning Abu Ghraib, right? Was that not in the news or something?
Hazel and Optimist:
Bullshit. What happened at Gitmo was clearly prohibited by the statutes at the time. Congress could have acted to amend or repeal those statutes before the commission of the crimes, but the fact that certain members of congress were briefed or that additional statutes were passed into law concerning the types of activities perpetrated at Gitmo and elsewhere does not get rid of the statute that existed at that time.
So it's not ex post facto in the sort of technical sense that would necessitate fancy latin phrases...
If you came on here and said, "I am on repeated record of opposing rape, but I don't think we should investigate rapists, or prosecute them," would you expect me to take you seriously?
Where the fuck did I say anything like that? I mean, really, fuck off. I support investigations and I support prosecutions if they are warranted I've been trying to get across to you that you don't know shit about the law involved and your hyperemotional stupidity isn't getting the ball moved forward one inch.
I mean, take your crybaby bullshit somewhere else. Just because you don't like the fact that the law might not do what you want it to do doesn't mean that everyone who knows a little bit more than you is against you. Jesus Christ.
Optimist,
With all due respect, you haven't really given us any evidence that you "know shit about the law."
Congress did pass legislation aimed at banning waterboarding and limiting other techniques a few times over the past several years. They were also limited by executive orders both under Bush and Obama.
If it was already illegal, then no legislation should be needed.
No, they didn't. The Congress passed a series of acts attempting to accomodate the Bush administration's request for greater latitude in dealing with detainees. Most of that legislation failed to survive court challenges. None of it was designed to close legal loopholes or increase scrutiny regarding what constituted torture. Some of it was designed to immunize certain US personnel against prosecution for war crimes, which basically inverts your argument: why pass legislation immunizing US personnel for committing war crimes, unless you think war crimes have been committed and want to help a brotha out?
It's also worth mentioning that those insiders most vehemently opposed to prosecutions (Cheney et al.) don't actually appear to be contesting that torture occurred, but rather insisting that it "worked." This argument doesn't even argue against the criminality of the action, it just replaces it with an extra-legal appeal to effectiveness.
well, I'll readily admit that I'm a babe in the woods on this, but I haven't seen anything compelling pointing the other way, either.
That, again, is begging the question. I want to why you think that's the case.
"The argument is two-pronged..."
Just goes to show you than an argument can have a lot of prongs and still lack teeth.
It's called Agency Deference, and it's one of the canons of statutory interpretation (since you sound like you're a big fan of canons).
As you know (or ought to from Chevron), agency deference applies to interpretive powers delegated by enabling acts to administrative agencies, not to Congress itself. The role of *legislative opinion* in constructing interpretation of law is far more contentious.
And even if it did apply, Chevron's two part test crushes this opinion. First one would have to argue that there is an ambiguity in the statute which was intended to be adjudicated by the agency; do you see anything in Article 18 that indicates Congress should be consulted as to its interpretation? Second the Chevron test applies a standard of reasonableness to the interpretation. As I and aspushkin have argued, arguing that waterboarding is not intended to cause mental suffering is absurd, hence their interpretations of the statute to exclude waterboarding from the definition of torture are not reasonable.
"That, again, is begging the question. I want to why you think that's [that torture occurred at Gitmo] the case."
This is a new argument. Up until now (as I have understood it) you have acknowledged that slamming people's heads into walls, subjecting them to sleep deprivation, "stress positions," "attention slaps," etc. etc. are illegal. You've suggested that the fact that gov't agents/contractors were led to believe that it was legal, they should be excused.
I haven't the time or energy to point out why all those tactics (plus repeated use of water torture) constitutes torture.
I support investigations and I support prosecutions if they are warranted
In every post in this thread you have opposed investigations and prosecutions.
I've been trying to get across to you that you don't know shit about the law involved and your hyperemotional stupidity isn't getting the ball moved forward one inch.
No, you've been saying absolutely idiotic nonsense like "If you have a letter from the DOJ, you don't have to worry about the law" or "If Nancy Pelosi knew, that means it wasn't against the law" and other Free Republic talking points that really have nothing to do with whether torture occurred, whether violations of law occurred, and whether investigations and prosecutions are warranted.
The terrorist won. Now we are no better than they are. There are people that actually think we are a nation of laws not people. The law only applies to some of the people..... Ask tax cheat Geitner. He got to blow off his taxes THEN become head of treasury.
The bottom line that the terrorist got us to torture, give up our civil liberties, pass stupid laws like the patriot act, endure incompetent fucks going through our luggage at the airport. They won, we suck.
We blew the test after 9/11 just like we blew it when we put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. A few guys in caves in Pakistan got this once mighty nation to reduce itself to their level.
HitNRun does very little on the torture story and when they do its THIS POST?!?!
*ay yi yi*
"In every post in this thread you have opposed investigations and prosecutions."
[citation needed]
El - I wasn't really arguing that Congress made active input as to the interpretation, just that Congress (or, select members of Congress) were made aware of the novel interpretations and didn't feel the need to do anything about it.
Furthermore, one could take a cue from Congress' inaction in this field. I mean, were any of these techniques a big secret? We've been talking about torture for years now.
Checklist for breaking the law:
1. Get a whackjob DOJ lawyer to say it might possibly be legal.
2. Ask a handful of congressmen. If they don't "feel the need to do anything about it," then you're good.
No, they didn't. The Congress passed a series of acts attempting to accomodate the Bush administration's request for greater latitude in dealing with detainees. Most of that legislation failed to survive court challenges. None of it was designed to close legal loopholes or increase scrutiny regarding what constituted torture.
Er. What teh hell is this then?
That language specifically would allow those civilians to defend their use of interrogation tactics by arguing in court that a "person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful." But legal experts said that provision also carries with it an implicit responsibility: Should CIA operatives or other civilians believe they were being directed to use an interrogation technique that was illegal, they would be obligated to disobey the order.
...
Though the White House held out the agreement as a compromise, McCain retained the language he has been proposing all along, which would prohibit the abuse of any detainee in U.S. custody and would also make it a legal requirement that Defense Department interrogators abide by the rules in the Army's field manual on interrogations.
This law was passed in 2005.
Is this supposed to be some kind of ass covering move by the Bush administration? If this has been struck down, I hadn't heard.
Dave W.,
I used the search function on this site and this is what I got for page 1 of the results
Romney, Torture, and Teens: The former governor's connections to ...Jun 27, 2007 ... Two of his top fundraisers, however, have long supported using tactics that have been likened to torture for troubled teenagers. ...
reason.com/news/show/121088.html
Torturing the Truth: It's time to face the ugly reality about the ...Apr 23, 2009 ... When our enemies use methods like this, they amount to torture. When we do, they don't. A newly released 2002 memo from a Bush ...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133047.html
Hit & Run > Reason Morning Links: New Torture Report, Supremes ...Obama shifts, now says he's open to investigation, possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who provided the legal framework for torture. ...
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133019.html
Torturing Logic: Is pulling fingernails really just an aggressive ...I never imagined, immediately after 9/11, that four years later we would be having a debate on whether and how much the United States should torture ...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33263.html
How Much Torture Is OK?: Tickin time bombs and slippery slopes ...It is a shocking sign of the times that we are having a debate about the appropriateness of torture. Some would say that it's a sign of our democracy's ...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32049.html
Hit & Run > Harvey Silverglate on Torture Prosecutions - Reason ...Silverglate also warns that prosecuting John Yoo or the other DOJ lawyers who said waterboarding and other coercive techniques did not qualify as torture ...
reason.com/blog/show/133132.html - 4 hours ago
Habeas Corpses: Torturing people to death is not a serious way to ...Nov 18, 2005 ... Here's a handy rule of thumb: If you are beating detainees to death, there's a fair chance that what you're doing counts as torture. ...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34128.html
Thinking About Torture: Or is it really all that it is cracked up ...Jan 10, 2005 ... The various legal opinions the Bush administration turned out on what has broadly become known as the torture topic were concerned with one ...
reason.com/news/show/33974.html
America on the Rack: Is the torture debate robbing us of ...Jun 15, 2007 ... Finally, America's defense of torture, as former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has argued, also goes a long way to embolden ...
reason.com/news/show/120853.html
The Pentagon's Secret Stash: Why we'll never see the second round ...might choose the occasion to force more disclosure of torture photos. ... "The reason that there is a torture scandal is because of those photographs. ...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36563.html
Let's say the president decides that he wants to crucify my baby. Let's say that he can find a schizophrenic who is licensed to practice law and who believes "in good faith" that the constitution allows for the crucifixion of my baby.
Would a schizophrenic who believes in crucifixion pass the bar? Insane hypotheticals = lame.
As I said earlier, I'd be happy to see Yoo (et. al.) disbarred.
That seems to me like the correct course of action.
Lawyers are presumably bound by a code of ethics, and if you want to make sure that legal advice provided by the DOJ is sound then the lawyers giving it need to be beholden to something other than executive favor.
1. Get a whackjob DOJ lawyer to say it might possibly be legal.
When the DOJ says something is "in their opinion" legal, that's more than a "might possibly". That's pretty much an assurance that you won't be prosecuted for it.
They are the agency responsible for enforcing the laws.
Anyway, even DOJ lawyers can't just make shit up. They have to base their opinions on a good faith reading of the law.
If you can prove they didn't, fine, prosecute THEM.
Alternatively, if you can show that they are incompetent to interpret the law, move to have them disbarred.
HitNRun does very little on the torture story and when they do its THIS POST?!?!
*ay yi yi*
This story isn't about torture per se ... it's about whether it is legally permissible (and/or sets a good precedent), to prosecute CIA agents for doing things they were told (in the opinion of the DOJ) weren't criminal.
WTF, Reason? Free minds, free markets, and free to torture?
Torture is illegal under the Convention Against Torture, a treaty Ronald Reagan signed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and if this assclown thinks he's a libertarian, he needs to go get his watch reset.
"Would a schizophrenic who believes in crucifixion pass the bar? Insane hypotheticals = lame."
How could one be a lawyer without being a schizophrenic to begin with?
If the OLC called a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Apparently the libertarian answer is 5.
fuck silverstein. torture lover
TAO,
So if the governing body of mathmatical experts says 2+2=5 then does 2+2=4?
gabe, you're a fucking nutjob truther. I don't have to respect any kind of stupid disanalogies you come up with. I just wanted to put that out there.
But, anyway, no, Gabe, you cannot just state that 2 + 2 = 5. But let me give a hint: Congress, the supreme legislative body in the country, determines, on the federal level, what is and what is not illegal. So, yes, if Congress, in an act, says that something isn't legally torture, then it isn't legally fucking torture! That isn't terribly hard to follow, is it?
Yipee! Another torture apology thread. And I thought for a second I had accidentally stumbled upon LGF or Redstate. Keep spinning guys.
It's a sad day when every logical argument is met with hyperemotional twaddle from the Airhead Brigade.
TAO,
IANAL, but I was pretty sure there's only one branch that can interpret laws and I'm also pretty certain that branch is the only one that wasn't consulted on these actions.
pinko | April 27, 2009, 11:17pm | #
Yipee! Another torture apology thread. And I thought for a second I had accidentally stumbled upon LGF or Redstate. Keep spinning guys.
You mean the same debate going on in the Obama Administration with some for prosecution and some against is going on here too? It is getting awfully crowded on your merry-go-'round.
Mo - sure, that much is true, but there is a whole lot that goes into statutory interpretation. What approach do libertarians favor? I hew as close to textualism as possible, with room for legislative history when something is dead ambiguous, and I do find "severe physical or mental pain" to be pretty damn ambiguous.
If this ever gets to the Courts, you can bet they're going to look at Congressional action in this realm to try to determine what those key words mean. Like I said, if Congress knew (or key members of Congress knew...sometimes Courts use committees and sometimes they do not) and did nothing about it...well, that cuts in favor of the procedures not being torture.
Also, I am pretty appalled that (not WRT you, Mo, I'm just sayin' in general) that we have people like Hazel and Harvey Silvergate being called apologists for the Administration. I can say that I am gravely concerned about political prosecutions or even ones that are perceived to be political prosecutions, especially since the American public acquiesced to these practices for So. Long.
I mean, now we want a whipping boy? Now we just have to exorcise some demons?
And frankly, abhorrent that I find some of these things, I still maintain that many of them do not rise to the level of torture. I'm tired of Nineteen Eighty-Faux around here.
alan - ha! The whole nation and the halls of Washington is debating these issues, but it's just so crystal-fucking-clear to some people they feel the need to beat us over the head with their Magical Revealed Knowledge.
Since Obama said his DoJ wont prosecute CIA agents somebody should tell him pinko thinks he is a Freeper.
Nah, I doubt if the dude above really thought it through when he was throwing accusations around.
The whole nation and the halls of Washington is debating these issues, but it's just so crystal-fucking-clear to some people they feel the need to beat us over the head with their Magical Revealed Knowledge.
Are you through with your self-absorbed snarky bullshit yet?
What the Bush administration did we executed Germans and Japanese for after World War II. It's torture, full stop, so knock off with the bogus pretense that somehow there's a "debate" going on. The only "debate" is between the apologists (and they are) and everyone else.
Isn't Reason supposed to be a libertarian publication? What's up with publishing torture apologetics, then? What other manifestations of obscene, untrammeled government power do you "libertarians" support?
Ohhmmmm...Children...let go of your minds and listen to the Revealed Insights of your Oracle, Rob McMillin.
Forgive me, sensei. I apologize for daring to speak out of turn.
Creamy - you need to learn the difference between apologia and discussions about the law and stability. See also: Lori Drew.
Creamy, these are the same folks for whom Ron Paul was too impure. You cosmotarians sure showed him what true libertarianism means!
"""Calling what was done "torture" does not make it torture."""
I don't call waterboarding torture in and of it's self. If I stuck bamboo shoots under your fingernails, or cut your finger off, I wouldn't call that torture. Any single event is not torture. Torture is when a captor does a technique and then threatens to use that technique over and over until you comply. Torture is a series of events, not just one single event, for the purpose of confession. We absolutely tortured, they knew it was wrong, hell they even discussed the possibility of being prosecuted if the truth was discovered.
It's not hard to understand that lawyers don't have the last word on law. If the Bush administration was serious about determining the legality they would have ran it by SCOTUS. Of course, it is possible that it was, and we've never heard about it. But it that was true, those who listened to the DOJ lawyers would have nothing to fear on the federal level. But they act like they do.
""""It's a sad day when every logical argument is met with hyperemotional twaddle from the Airhead Brigade."""
Isn't that mostly what we've gotten from the Bush admin, and starting to get from the current crew?
"""They believed they were doing interrogation techniques that did not cause severe physical or mental harm."""
If they believed it, they wouldn't have worried about being found out. They knew it was wrong and they wanted a legal opinion that said it wasn't wrong for cover in the case it came to light. The CIA had problem with some of the activity and threatened to walk out.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Waterboarding someone a couple of hundred times is certainly torture. We did torture. The arugement is really about was it legal or not.
I'd bet those arguing for torture would cry foul if Iraq started waterboarding that american student twice a day. And we don't get to decide what other countries call legal. So if Iran says it's legal...
TAO,
I haven't really weighed in because there are a few matters I'm ambivalent. I worked as a paralegal for two years for a firm that represented a major tobacco company so seperating my own feelings of morality from my understanding of the law is second nature.
A prosecutor should not bring a case to court if he believes there is a low probablilaty of conviction, and no doubt, that influenced what the DoJ advised Obama. If I am remember correctly, you had a time period after 9/11 where Congress ammended the law to allow 'enhanced interogation techniques', and that was thrown out of court. For any CIA interogator operating in that time period before it was thrown out, you have reasonable doubt on its face.
Like I said, I am ambivalent. If the DoJ finds cases that can be prosecuted where there was criminal malice and ex post facto doesn't apply, the memos are a less clear cut than what I outlined, fine, I say go for it, otherwise, it is a hard sell. I imagine the Administration knows this by now better than anyone.
Then, the cynical side of me would love to see some show trials of some ex Bush officials, like someone expressed above because show trials would suck all the oxygen out of Washington and all the momentum out of the Obama agenda.
It is very difficult for an administration regain that mojo once it is derailed. Clinton '98, Reagan '86.
I imagine a Republican operative going up to John Yoo, and asking, 'are you willing to make a great, personal sacrifice for the greater good of your country?'
(C) the threat of imminent death
Waterboarding in a nutshell.
Ohhmmmm...Children...let go of your minds and listen to the Revealed Insights of your Oracle, Rob McMillin.
As opposed to, what, the same creeps who had lower standards than the Luftwaffe?
I'm sure you enjoy bearbaiting. Your moral standards are below those of the Nazis, who had legal justifications for everything.
I don't call waterboarding torture in and of it's self.
Then you are wrong.
I think the King of Jordan put it well. People though out the Middle East are looking to see if the rule of law is real or not in America. Just like many of our closet friends, that stopped working with us on intelligence issues, are wondering if America has turned a corner or not. McCain is a good example of someone saying they are against torture, but do not want anyone held accountable nor want talk about it.
Amazing and real.
Let's see... I read that there had been over 400 Armed Services cases against military personnel... and 4000 dead US people overseas, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and 2,000,000 refuges
Nothing like torture to try and get a link to justify the Iraq war!!!! Sure torture works...
Whenever Master McMillin is done Godwinning the thread, will he please let us know?
Beware anybody peddling certainty in this issue. It's a sure-as-shit sign he does not know what he's talking about.
So when is Obama going to be prosecuted for sending people to be anally raped for choosing to get high with a substance less lethal than alcohol?
Obama and his administration are guilty of torture (by anyone's definition).
Those who have been silent are complicit.
TAO:
1. Waterboarding is a technique designed to elicit a feeling of imminent death by drowning
2. Intentionally induced fear of imminent death is torture according to federal law (TrickyVic with the helpful cite, above)
Therefore, waterboarding is torture.
A is B. B is C. Therefore A is C.
QED.
Sometimes certainty is a mask for bullshit. But sometimes, every once in a while, certainty is because a thing is certain.
Elemenope: Simple and well said.
Angry Optimist: Feigning uncertainty is also a mask for bullshit and not a substitute for a logical argument. You may not want waterboarding to be torture but it is; that's why it was developed in the first place and why up until a few years ago we didn't have arguments about it being torture or not.
Whenever Master McMillin is done Godwinning the thread, will he please let us know?
The obvious caveat to the Godwin rule: if you want to stop being compared to Nazis, stop actually doing and advocating doing things that were in fact worse than what Nazis did in practice. Does this really need to be pointed out?
Angry Optimist
After reading over some of the posts, I've realized that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Good night.
What other manifestations of obscene, untrammeled government power do you "libertarians" support?
How about prosecuting people for stuff that they were assured, by the governments own lawyers, was legal?
The key to real liberty is having a few show trials every four years to make sure that the bad people pay.
How about prosecuting people for stuff that they were assured, by the governments own lawyers, was legal?
I'm not getting why you believe assurances matter. Walk through this with me:
1. Laws against torture exist
2. Administration wishes to ignore law
3. People ordered to break law want cover
4. Administration offers conducive 'legal opinion'
5. people ordered to break law break law
6. useful idiots argue 'admin opinion sez what was true is not longer true'
Your problem is that you cannot disconnect in your head what is legal, that is, constituted by laws, from some administration's self-serving interpretation of what those laws should be made to mean for the smallest possible inconvenience to them.
Or shorter, like as you might, laws don't mean what some guy says they ought to mean because he wants it thus.
Or shortest, in the words of TAO on another thread: "Words mean things." There is no ambiguity in the meaning of any of these words. "imminent fear of death" is what waterboarding was *designed to induce*, by everyone's admission. That is torture under the law. The law is clear. Why does it matter that some admin suit can write a memo that says different? This is a nation of laws, not of DOJ memos.
And in our legal system, based on an ancient Anglo-Saxon moral and legal tenet incorporated into our own criminal codes, a wrongdoer may be punished only if he knowingly and intentionally committed an act that he believed to be illegal.
Are you fucking shitting me? This clown knows less about the law than John Yoo.
*I have not read any of the preceding comments.
I would imagine that the "imminent threat of death" clause is going to be evaluated under a reasonable man standard. Now, it is actually the case that waterboarding will not kill you...so if the waterboardee was told "this won't kill you" beforehand, it might not be said he could have reasonably feared death.
Just sayin'.
Yeah, TAO, they brief the "interviewee" on the procedures he is about to experience, including any side effects and relevant data.
They also debrief him afterward, over chocolate sundaes.
(Entirely seriously, even if they did tell him, a reasonable person is not likely to *believe* the words or intent of hostile captors. So still, under this ridiculous hypothetical, no dice.)
Upon review, you're not looking at the full statute, El. This is how the definitions section of 2340 reads:
That doesn't have anything to do with "reasonable belief". At no point were the detainees under a threat of imminent death (objectively speaking).
No doubt lots of war crimes were commited by the allies that were never prosecuted.
No doubt. And this is certainly no time to start being consistent and just! There are still terrists on the loose.
a wrongdoer may be punished only if he knowingly and intentionally committed an act that he believed to be illegal.
Dear torture apologists,
SHUT THE FUCK UP with your bullshit the int"didn't think it was torture" line of argument:
From the NYTImes:
Also, if you think the DOJ shouldn't prosecute because the DOJ gave bad legal advice I hate 2 words for you:
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
SHUT THE FUCK UP with your bullshit the int"didn't think it was torture" line of argument:
Shold read:
SHUT THE FUCK UP with your bullshit the CIE agents "didn't think it was torture" line of argument:
Fuck ME!!
CIE should be CIA
Preview is my friend
Preview is my friend
Preview is my friend
Severe mental suffering is produced by repeatedly being made to believe one is about to die. You're strapped toa board and water is poured over your nose and mouth until you feel threatened with imminent death by drowning. This is not rocket science, TAO.
And given the sleep deprivation and stress positions and other psychological and physiological methods being used, it is likely that they were very unreasonable (insensible) people by the time they were waterboarded, who would readily believe that they were about to die.
False executions have always been considered torture, and in this way false drowning is no different from false hanging or firing squad.
Felony imprisonment is intended to cause severe mental suffering as punishment and is torture.
Most libertarians = fucking evil utilitarians who support torture
Look at me, I am more moral than any of you. What do I win?
1. Laws against torture exist
2. Administration wishes to ignore law
3. People ordered to break law want cover
4. Administration offers conducive 'legal opinion'
5. people ordered to break law break law
6. useful idiots argue 'admin opinion sez what was true is not longer true'
1. Massive Terrorist attacks occur. Thousands dead.
2. CIA captures persons believed to belong to terrorist group.
3. CIA wants to know what is and is not legally permissible under the torture statute
4. CIA asks DOJ what is legally permissible.
5. DOJ makes a list of things that are legally permissible.
6. CIA agents follow advice of DOJ.
7. Opinions change about what is legally permissible.
8. CIA agents get fucked over for doing what they were told was legal.
6a. Leadership of both parties know and approve of the interrogation activities.
The problem I have with all this is how we're politicizing the issue. It is just petty partisan point-scoring, a la "reducing the the growth of social security = you're cutting social security!" type argumentation.
But there is a real danger here is that the people out there doing their best to protect the country (people who followed the rules and are doing what we wanted them to do) are being undercut just so democrats can bash republicans.
ChicagoTom, you STFU you torture apologist.
Have you called on Obama to be prosecuted for sending people to be anally raped?
No? Then you are a toruture apologist. You fucking piece of shit fucking fuck-bag.
"""I don't call waterboarding torture in and of it's self."
"Then you are wrong."""
Well then I guess all those poor tortured victims from SERE school have a lawsuit. But of course they don't becuase waterboarding is also a training technique when applied once in a controlled situation.
If anyone shoots you in the leg it's not torture, if they keeps shooting in the leg because you're not answering the question, it rises to torture. Torture is about more than just a single act.
It's amazing at the people who defend the torture is ok when the government says it is arguement, and willing accept the notion that DOJ lawyers are the final say on legality. It's just stupid if you play it out. If we really want to know if their opinion was in fact in concert with the law, let's take it to SCOTUS and see what they say. If they didn't do anything illegal what do they have to hide?
This thread is an example of why I agree with Glen Beck on the Bubba effect. American's, people in general, have no problem ignoring morality, and laws based in morality, when it's believed to be self-serving, and they will gladly turn on there fellow man.
But it's a sad day for any republic when its citizens allow utilitarian ethics to override the rule of law.
"""7. Opinions change about what is legally permissible. """
No it can't. I'm sure many lawyers would love for that to be true.
"""Have you called on Obama to be prosecuted for sending people to be anally raped?"""
JB, your brain called, you left it at the bar, go pick it up you fucking piece of shit fucking fuck-bag, it's feeling lonely.
TrickyVic, you are nothing but a hypocritical torture apologist. You like seeing people tortured you sick fuck. You and Obama can't get enough of seeing people anally raped.
"""Now, if you have the statute-enforcers telling you that the methods you're using will not cause "severe physical or mental pain", you cannot have intended your actions to do just that."""
That arguement fails in court. In reality if you DO cause sever physical or mental pain, your intentions are irrelevant, and following orders is NOT a defense.
If I threw a rock at you intending to miss and I actually hit you, I can be prosecuted, it's not about what I thought, or intended, it's about what I did as a matter of fact. It wouldn't matter if the President told me to do it.
Ah, poor JB, show me on the doll where Obama touched you.
I find it interesting to look at who Obama has threatened with prosecution and who he has said needn't worry:
(1) The torturers - no worries, they were just following orders.
(2) The lawyers - first in line, not for ordering torture, not for committing torture, but for writing memos about torture.
(3) The rulers (Congressional overseers, Executive officials, CIA panjandrums) who ordered or approved of torture - apparently, no worries on that front, either.
Can anyone make any moral, ethical, or legal sense of this?
It's amazing at the people who defend the torture is ok when THEY say it is arguement, and willing accept the notion that THEIR CONSCIENCE has the final say on legality.
Those of us who believe that a DOJ memo cannot in and of itself provide immunity from criminal charges are "politicizing" the issue, but only to the extent that any exercise of juridical authority is "political."
And for the umpteenth time: The DOJ lawyers didn't "draw up" a list of techniques, nor did they tell the torturers that what they were doing was legal. They explicitly pointed out the tentative, hypothetical nature of their conclusions re: a list of techniques proposed by the torturers themselves. If you believe that a mere opinion presented by an office of the executive branch automatically confers full immunity from criminal prosecution then you will allow the president to unilaterally violate the law whenever he so chooses. Sadly, there was nothing hypothetical about such a situation.
Re: the opinion that those who ordered and carried out torture should be prosecuted rather than those who merely provided legal cover: I tend to agree. The DOJ lawyers should be disbarred and shunned, but I do believe that they wrote their ludicrous opinion in (twisted) "good faith."
TrickyVic, I can show you on the doll where you took it from Obama: every hole and he even made a few new ones.
You took is so often and so deep that you will apologize no matter what he does. He sends people to be anally raped and you call it heaven because it gets you hot.
You know exactly what you are: a sick fuck. You claim that anal rape isn't torture; it's nothing but love expressed in a different fashion. Keep lying to yourself as you are so full of that Obama jizz that it is coming out your ears.