Thirteenth in a series
The other day, I pointed out that the tortures inflicted upon detainees at Gitmo were performed on American soil. The Supreme Court agrees with that interpretation and said so, in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).
The Administration seems to think that is hunky dory and makes a big distinction about the detainees not being given civil rights because they are not American citizens.
Respondents’ [ed note: President Bush is Respondent] primary submission is that the answer to the jurisdictional question is controlled by our decision in Eisentrager. In that case, we held that a Federal District Court lacked authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to 21 German citizens who had been captured by U.S. forces in China, tried and convicted of war crimes by an American military commission headquartered in Nanking, and incarcerated in the Landsberg Prison in occupied Germany.
Rasul v. Bush, ibid. SCOTUS completely rejected that argument in Rasul.
This got me thinking about what else might be inflcited upon non American citizens on American soil.
A while back, Pach wrote a series [here and here] on internment camps that Michael Chertoff had built by the Department of Homeland Security with the capacity to hold large numbers of illegal immigrants. He also wrote about massive roundups of workers at a meatpacking plant.
Yep, the same Michael Chertoff who promised John Yoo that DOJ would not prosecute government torturers back when Mike was Chief of the Criminal Division at DOJ.
On page 11 of the Yoo 2003 Opinion [long pdf] he tells us that he checked with Skelator and that
"[t]he Criminal Division concurs in our conclusion that these canons of construction preclude the application of the assault, maiming, interstate stalking, and torture statutes to the military during the conduct of a war."
So, if it is OK to torture detainees at Gitmo who we merely suspected of violating or wishing to violate one or more US laws because they are not US citizens; does it not follow that ICE can torture illegal immigants (whose very presence in this country is prima facia evidence that the person has broken at the very least one immigration law) and it is also OK since that person is also not an American citizen?
Am I missing something here?
Where does it stop?
[Editor's note: This photo by takomabibelot features a banner created and designed by Firedoglake reader BonnieT of Austin, Texas, where she operates OpposeTorture.org.]
Related posts:
- The Next Terrorist Attack on US Soil, Courtesy of Dick Cheney’s Dark Side
- Rich Lowry Suddenly in Favor of Criticizing American Presidents on Foreign Soil
- With His Children Still Missing, KSM’s Torture Continues
- Gitmo Lawyer Says Detainee Treatment Mirrored Own Torture Training; Harsh Treatment Tears “Fabric of Who We Are”
- Yoo’s Nightmare: A Trial Showing Torture was Unnecessary
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
zed
This just in: Sami al Hajj (sp?) is RELEASED from guantanamo bay on this day. He flew home to Khartoum, his hometown. See Democracy Now.
It might stop if someone went to jail for it… not jolly likely.
Recall, it’s only “torture” if the abuse is rendered as “punishment.”
Nothing else to see here, folks, just move along in orderly fashion…
It’s as Scalia says, It’s not punishment for a crime.
I will heal only after the disease is dug out of my government. To borrow a phrase: no magic wands of pardon.
In a room with no corners at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.
Bush has either authorized or enabled others to do violence against the constitution under color of law.
All the carping between the Obama and Clinton camps pales in comparison to what Bush has done, and the dems cannot allow a McCain presidency four years to sweep it further under the rug.
Pickin’ it up here, boss.
Am I reading this “right”? The govt can arrest anyone it wants under the umbrella of “wartime” whether or not the arrested person has anything to do with acts of war? OMG.
“Most Unpopular Modern President” New Poll: now is anyone surprised?
I can’t call Bush “president” anymore.
Hey! No talking. You’re supposed to move along QUIETLY!
That’s what we call “spreadin freedumb”, Bush style.
Welcome to AmeriKuh
What do you like? In Tx there is a phrase something like A TX village just lost its idiot. Even that is tooooo kind.
You forgot LIEberty and just-as … fur oil.
It doesn’t stop, as far as I can see. I keep thinking about torture (the practice, not the legal justifications) in the context of what happens to American citizens on American soil – in American prisons.
I believe there is a close connection between treatment of prisoners in the US and the treatment of detainees. It’s not for nothing that people (like Grainger) with experience as prison guards were assigned to working with detainees in Abu Graib. And consider what will happen when people like that go back to their regular jobs after leaving Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
They can wiggle and squirm and protest everything is legal all they want.
It isn’t.
We Know that, they know that and they know that we know.
This isn’t Rumsfieldian.
There are known knowns.
Ask ‘em if they have any plans to travel overseas for a vacation, that tells me all I need to know.
Great post, LHP! And did you hear that Addington has deigned to grace the Congress with his presence by accepting Conyers invitation to testify per TPM? I figure if he didn’t think he could run rings around them, he wouldn’t have said yes.
That’s ok. He prefers to be called either “Decider”, “Commander Guy”, or “Majesty”.
Ain’t that the truth!
There is no “war”. There is no declaration of war. The “Global War on Terror” is not a “war”. Congress has not officially made a “declaration of war on “terror”. They have voiced opinions, and they throw the terms around 24/7, but there is no declaration of war. There are only authorizations to use military force which then become referred to as “Operation” this or that. Therefore, Chertoff’s and Yoo’s presumption of authorities permitted during the “conduct of war” is bullsh*t.
That is what is missing.
I thought it was only “punishment”, as in cruel and unusual, if the torture was rendered after adjudication.
If Sandman is around. Here is the entry I prepared for Mary Gade. It should be up later today in my scandals list.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..5733.story
I know thats right!
tragically, no
and we’re gonna ignore established protocols on child soldiers
Speaking of torture…did anyone hear Joe Scarborough brazenly proclaim that torture works this morning, while he tried to shootdown Mika’s protests. What a jerk.
OMG, Bush flapping his lips like it is a public service announcement.
His Most Serene Majesty el Presindente Jorge W.
SomozaBu’ush.OH! My goodness! You can’t bring up THAT subject.
There are JOBS involved.
Besides, there are no innocent people in prison or they would have been tortured.
Prison is ‘punishment’ not torture.
We give ‘em all a fair trail before we imprison them.
It’s not our fault if they can’t afford a Dream Team.
Obviously, the ‘unseen hand’ has seen fit to see that they (the bad guys and gals) they receive their just, and fitting JUSTICE.
What’s a little extra ‘fun and games’?
Who are we to question?
Ours not to reason ‘why’, ours ….
They don’t call him Joe theres a dead girl in your office Scarborough
for nothing.
And just because I am really p/o’ed today…Remember when lots of folks thought their plan was to “starve the beast” to do away with any safety net services. Could any of us known what a debacle we had ahead. I heard a wonderful speaker from the UTx School of Journalism…going hard against the media. He would add “media” to the military, industial complex. He thinks we have already past the tipping point of being over the cliff. Our myth of America as honest broker, peace maker has been completely exposed; we have set out of a cauldron of war. So what is next: who knows. Just really, really not what we have had during our empire building years. He argues it is not Gloomy when you can start speaking the truth.
Actually, I wonder why the interviewer, Leslie Stahl, did not do a better job (slaps my head, she’s a journalist!) of clarifying Scalia’s statement. She should have said, “So are you saying there is no offense if the torture is done prior to adjudication?” and let him answer that. Perhaps she might have mentioned that it is against international law by way of the Geneva Conventions to torture and no distinction seems to have been made as to whether the torturing occurs prior to judgment or not (I think).
lol
OMG, how many times a week are they planning to be trotting out president crankypants? It didn’t work very well, esp on privatizing social security when his approval ratings were a lot higher.
Anyone price flag pins lately? There must be a drop off in sales if 72% of unpatriotic americans think the country is going in the wrong direction.
Digg for such a great post by LHP!!
prior to adjudication, torture is not punishment, it is just plain assault.
You know, one of those felony things.
Actually it doesn’t stop with non-citizens. Padilla was transferred to the jurisdiction of the federal courts precisely to avoid a test of his previous status and treatment as a citizen held as an unlawful enemy combatant on American soil. I still draw a distinction between this kind of “American soil” and Guantanamo. The analogue case of a citizen held at Guantanamo to a non-citizen (Rasul) is Hamdi.
OMG, Shrub is an oilman, yes? His statements on the economies of oil demonstrate that he is either dumb as a box of rocks or lying through his teeth. OK, maybe a little of both…
Best thing Clusterfcck could do is ta go on an eight month long vacation in Crawford..Americans would cheer….
Just quit talkin- quit doin ANYTHING you piece of dogshit!
Anyone know if the ICC can try Bush/Cheney/et.al in absentia?
Exactly, why would we have to choose?
OT, but don’t miss this You Tube gaiilonfong posted downstairs.
It shows Carville, Stephanopoulos & Kantor discussing poll results, and Kantor says some very disturbing things without so much as a twitch from George and James.
Most ugly, and even though it was Bill’s and not Sen. Clinton’s campaign, someone still is gonna have lots of ’splainin to do.
in moments of magical 20-20 hindsight, I think if we’d just given him a walk-in closet full of uniforms and Cheney a trillion dollars, they might’ve just gone the f’ away – saving us untold loss in lives, reputation, principles, and a couple trillion dollars
TLinGA – we at chez cbl often refer to it as The Arbusto Presidency :D
“OMG, Shrub is an oilman, yes?”
_____________
Yeah. And what a spectacular career that was. Georgie Dry Hole.
Is that statement enough to impeach Scalia ? Oh right, it’s not on the table …
I guess that lends a little more weight to the “dumb” side.
I guess having to let Don Siegelman out of jail really pissed them off because now they’re just fucking with him.
http://www.leftinalabama.com/s…..aryId=1678
FWIW,
I believe that is a clip from the movie The War Room and HuffPo has a post up where Mickey Kantor denies totally ever having said the words he is accused of saying.
But of course, it does give everyone who opposes Senator Clinton an opportunity to clutch their pearls, act horrified and presume to believe that of course she is the most vile and evilest thing to ever come along, right?
I curious lately about the possible legal conflict between McCain’s purported eligibility for the Presidency, despite his 1936-ish birth in Panama, and the Administration’s contention that Guantanamo is beyond the full reach of American courts…hmmm…one or the other it seems…
((((( Fern )))))
… what happens to American citizens on American soil – in American prisons.”
Well said, it starts from within …
Opinions are like assholes. And his are clogged by a hemorrhoid the size of Uranus.
fuggeaboutit
Unfortunately , harder to impeach a judge than a politician. What’s a word for beyond impossible?
Yo, I’m eatin a boca burger over here! :)
B-bu-but … Americans were killed on American soil by non- Americans, which makes it a War …
See above
Hi LHP. Thank you much for this series.
We’ve been toying with a thunderstorm alert here for some time, and it’s finally gotten ominously dark as well as noisy out there, so I must sign off.
But I’ll be back for sure to read the whole thing as soon as I can. Your posts and discussions are wonderfully helpful to understanding this whole awful problem.
Bye for now…
Pelosi’d
OMG How COULD you?!
How many Bocas died just so you could satisfy your appetite?! *g*
from the wiki on Samuel Chase
LOL
I cannot remeber the case. However I am pretty sure I recall from Con Law that aliens on American soil only have the rights afforded them by Congress i.e. statute. The Case were handed down during the time that refugees (boat people)from Haiti I think were being turned away at sea because once they landed on U.S. soils that attained due process rights by Fed. Statute. The findings I believe also stated that if you are NOT on American soil and are NOT a citizen or resident of the US then you have NO rights at all (constitutional or statutory)unless CONGRESS ordains to give you some. That’s Congress not the EXECUTIVE. The executive has no say in it whatsover.
Should that be so hard? The last 2 lied about following precedent.
His years as POTUS has resulted in a Cash Cow for Oil men and the M.I.C.
This clearly shows he is not an idiot …
Speedy, You are good. You remember Con law.
*snort!*
President Bush
The American People have determined that your presence in the White House will not be necessary during the balance of your term….please leave the key under the mat as you depart.
Signed- A Grateful Nation
Thanks cbl2 @ 60 and nicely done, RevBev @ 63 !
Saw last night on Olbermann that Nelson Mandela is on the no-fly list because he was a “terrorist” in the 70s. I hope that the next prez, whether it’s Obama or Clinton cleans that crap up by Executive order/fiat if nothing else.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not have a police state in mind 200+ years ago, but damned if Beloved Glorious Leader hasn’t managed to create one in just under eight years. Probably the only task he’s ever successfully completed in his adult life besides knocking up Laura (and that takes no talent at all).
Wow, good point.
Please indulge me in some idealism.
If we the people of the US feel our citizens have certain rights, would it not extend in a philosophical way that we believe all people have inalienable rights? I mean, if we were in charge of everybody…wouldn’t we extend the rights of humanity to them?
I.e. we treat Jeffrey Dalmer and Ted Bundys of our land better than we treat these detainees.
So while I can understand foreign people may not get certain privileges of citizenship, they are still people and it doesn’t necessarily follow that we can treat them like dirt.
Am I making sense?
Sorry, I am so late to the thread. Mu laptop died about 11 Am this morning and I have been on the phone with tech support trying to get online.
I am writing this on my bookkeeper’s workstation and will probably get kicked off when lunch hour is over.
It’s never easy
Waddya wanna bet that Botha and DeKlerk were not on that list ?
Why? How? Got links. Did US drop whatever charges, etc? Is this another “nevermind” ?
FYI. Dean on Goldwater’s opinion of St. McCain.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080502.html
Read what they’ve done to our neighbors to the north in the name of Fighting Terrah.
I think the definition of “pelosied” is to ignore an issue due to lack of balls or respect for the constitution…
…I think the word we are looking for is Inconceivable!!!
Great post….gawd…what are we gonna do…:(
((((( LHP )))))
My Windoze laptop quit suddenly yesterday, then after 3 hours, started working again … might have been a “Labor Day” protest or something … *g*
Maybe we should consider your idea next time?
Wonder how many ‘next times’ we can survive, … assuming we get through this one?
I wouldn’t take that bet. I’m guessing neither of them was anything other than a “statesman” in the eyes of the powers that “were”.
You are making PERFECT sense!
Well, you know Bobby, those Canadians think they are above us …
I agree. I think originally that was the sense that non US citizens shouldn’t be afforded all rights of citizenship i.e. voting. But Due Process is kind of universal thing that ANYONE in America should be given because this is AMERICA. But the Current Admin. believe you ain’t sh*t if you ain’t American and even then if you ain’t the right kind of American. But the reasoning for black sites and Camp x-ray is to avoid due process because America is America. If you are here you get due process period, the end, you cannot change the constitution or case law from that without destroying the foundations of this Country.
I sometimes watch that MSNBC series “Lockup.”
Every day in this nation we manageably accord civilized due process to the worst incarcerated criminal monsters imaginable. The notion that a bunch of foreign enemy rag-clad irregulars pose such a DIRE existential threat to our nation as to preclude their being treated equivalently is simply fucking preposterous on its face.
It doesn’t have shit to do with “security”; it’s just about malevolent retribution.
707!
It almost seems like he is saying…
what sort of hippy crap is that?
December 2008 was a coup d’etat. Insiders like Richard Clark and others in the intelligence community understood what had happened by February 2009. It took many of us a little longer. My own realization dates to summer, 2002. None of this surprises me. Our government was taken over by a mafia.
Yep, and you gotta know somebodies gonna want to live blog that hearing
Makes me wanna burn one, dude…
whoops: I meant December 2000 and January 2001. Preview is your friend.
And “edit” would also be nice. “Show text” is cool, but “edit” would be swell.
Is Dec the Court date? I can still go right to the blue depression of that day?
IRRC, Didn’t we something to that effect in the declaration of independence? *g*
BINGO!
Swellacious, in fact, ’specially for them of us what is synapse-challenged, brain-finger and spelleratin’ wise …
This is OT, but it is a transcript of a man who confessed to the JFK assassination…verrrry interesting…check out all the mob links, and the political implications, etc…:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/confession2.htm
But, but (stentorian tones) nine-eleven changed …
LOL. Some days I swear my IQ starts with a decimal point.
You too?
While it’s not an everyday thing, a number of federal judges have been succesfully impeached. I think there have been more impeachments of judges than of electeds
Drat … I thought my MENSA test misplaced a period …
be safe.
So…is that saying that if you torture, its not torture unless you prove it was torture after you charge someone with torture, because you had proof it was torture…but it wasn’t, because it wasn’t considered torture before you charged them with it which you can’t do, because it doesn’t exist until you charge them with it, which you can’t because…?
LHP, what are the chances of Alito, Roberts and/or Scalia getting impeached … not that I’m expecting this Congress to do so …
Didja ever see ‘The Densa Society Quiz”?
LOL.
Weren’t they both dead before the days of the list?
May i go off topic?
Thanks for that link Bobby. I knew that the paranoia was pretty bad, but OMG treating Canadians as terra-rists? Jeebus on toast…
The fatheads at DHS need a wake-up call in the form of a massive firing and restructuring. It has to be the most reactive agency in the government, hell it was born out of “reaction”… it’s got no cred, and no real mission except to piss off everyone it comes in contact with.
And maybe a coroner’s time-of-death inquiry regarding Clarence The Most Qualified?
You are reading it right. They are not likely to come to your house in the middle of the night in a Black Maria to take you away. Much easier simply to pick you up while you are driving down the Interstate to visit your Aunt Hattie. It would be an easy matter for them to jam your cell phone and ’disappear’ you and your car. I’m not saying this is happened; I’m only saying that nothing prevents it from happening. No one will ever know what happened to you.
It’s funny you say that, b/c now it is suddenly working again (After the tech guy got onthe road for a service call)
Thanks for the responses guys. (I had toddles off to read the Time Sanchez excerpt. wow.)
It just doesn’t make sense that we “decent” Americans can be so indecent to others. How we treat others defines us not the person so treated. Gee, I guess that makes me a big weinie, huh?
First of all, I thank you for your the first paragraph of your reply.
I don’t always have the time to read through each thread and didn’t see CHS’s response to the original post until later.
I’m troubled by your second paragraph, however. It kinda goes off the rails unnecessarily, IMHO.
How in the world did you get that out of my comment?
Yes I support Sen. Obama, but if someone from his campaign busted out with ‘worthless white n-bombs’ I’d have a problem with that as well.
Carville and Kantor are involved with her campaign. There’s nothing inappropriate in having to answer questions re: this clip.
And, running to the “HRC is the most vile and evilest thing to ever come along” card when I obviously didn’t say that was unnecessary.
looseheadprop, thank you! so much for running the torture series. We pups are so lucky to have your expertise.
I cannot believe this is happening here. These people must be prosecuted by US. And since there are so many grievous crimes against the World, I now formally join the Try Them in the Hague camp as well.
But for our own sake, for our own souls, we must try them here; in an open and just court.
Yesterday was Labor Day in China, where most computers are manufactured …
Coincidence, I think not ! *g*
Hell, Cheryl and I went on “The Booze Cruise” (aptly named) to Ensenada a while back. Coming back in through Customs/Immigration in Long Beach was insulting, the officious, pissy rudeness. Same shit at McCarran when we got back from the UK a few years ago.
Scalia’s argument about punishment is ridiculous. You are cruelly and unusually punishing someone by torturing them to cause them to answer you during interrogations. He’s sort of saying that interrogation is not cruel and unusual punishment…true…unless you are punishing them with cruel and unsual methods for not giving the answers you are looking for. Bonehead.
Amen, Elliott … in an open and just court …
On Bill Maher the other night (well two weeks ago) Jason Alexander was telling a story about his cousin who flies for some airline. Going through security, TSA took away his nail file (he was in uniform apparently enroute his plane to fly a trip). According to Alexander his cousin amiably agreed to give up the deadly nail file of death and then told the TSA moron “Hey, I don’t want to rock your world or anything, but we have a three-foot crash axe in the cockpit, and I’m flying the plane”.
Fucking simpletons with too much power and no intelligence or common sense.
In living memory? At the Federal level? You mean, you mean …?
LHP, you would not be pulling our collective leg, here, would you?
You mean there is hope?
Or, just that ‘it’ is within the realm of possumbility?
Realistically, how likely is it?
What could be sufficiently ’serious’ to the legal ‘establishment’ to even suggest such a thing?
Have you heard ‘rumors’ or are you trying to be kind?
It’s possible (more than) that I don’t understand.
Talk is one thing, but hard, cold, careless reality quite another …
Hi LHP. Fine article once again, thanks.
That was a great story and indicative of what many Canadians face going through U.S. Customs.
My mom went on a Cruise last Christmas with some relatives and they pulled her over and interrogated her for 45 minutes … my ‘Consul General’ friend got an unfriendly letter from me …
“Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”
Borne out empirically in just two words: “Milgram” and “Zimbardo.”
Is the tightening of the Canadian border some kind of payback for putting the US on the list of countries violating human rights? I believe we are on their Torture Watch list. Also they just turned away Chertoff on his datamining expedition, claiming in their quaint Canadian way, that fingerprints and such are subject to their privacy laws. Chertoff didn’t like that.
I second this. All particulars.
And extra thanks to LHP!!!
there is one thing everyone seems to be missing;
the purpose of torture IS to inflame, it IS to create unrest, it IS to have the citizenship fear the government
that is the ONLY purpose, the purpose is NOT to get information, it is NOT to get people to get along, it is not to “win the hearts and minds”
The history of habeas corpus also undermines Bush/Cheney’s torture regime. One reason its legal team dismisses that right out of hand is because habeas corpus inherently limit the sovereign’s will. It doesn’t give just one prisoner held by George Bush his day in court; it requires the king, limits his power, to give all his prisoners their day in court.
In shorthand, habeas corpus is the detained person’s right to question their detainment by the sovereign. Cases from Britain’s empire, before and after the American Revolution, are relevant. Especially before, since one avenue through which individuals acquire their habeas corpus rights is via the American adoption of English common law as it existed at the time the thirteen colonies rejected British rule.
One of the most important traditions of habeas corpus is this: the prisoner’s right to question his imprisonment reaches just as far as the king’s power to detain. It doesn’t matter whether the prisoner is a national of the king’s home country, or whether the king has qualified or full legal sovereignty over a territory, or whether the king asserts jurisdiction by force of arms. If the king has the practical power to detain you, you can question his right to do so.
That was fundamental in the process of weaning heads of state off their quaint notion of rule by divine right to rule by consent of the governed. Bush’s attempt to do away with habeas corpus — to limit its reach so it would not limit his — is about a lot more than urban warrior quibbles about the law protecting criminals. It’s fundamental to the relationship between ruler and ruled. Because with the wrong king or regent, we’re all criminals unless the king decrees otherwise.
I apologize for offending you.
But you took the brunt for all the folks in the previous thread who willingly jumped to the conclusion that the clip showed how vile HRC and her supporters are.
Kantor may be involved with Clinton’s campaign but I do not think Carville is, although he may also support her.
Again, I apologize. I am not much of a fan of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama but do believe that each is far superior to Senator McCain.
So, I do get a little testy when folks immediately rush to believe and accept the worst about EITHER of them and by unquestioningly posting the YouTube as fact, it seems to be accepting and promulgating the worst.
For their VIEWS? Not much. If someone catches them deliberately “throwing” a case. Yeah. It will turn on the provable facts.
I hope she wore her nicest thong for going through any and all metal detectors.
Something I’ve been wondering about since that Scalia interview (which I don’t consider that well done, but it’s better than nothing, I guess). Since Scalia says that he would love to throw anyone who burns or defaces the flag in jail, he cannot do so because according to his theory (and mine) flag-burning is covered under the first amendment’s freedom of expression. So then if the matter of retroactive immunity for telecoms came up, would he apply the fourth amendment and say that it is unconstitutional? Would he see the President’s plenary pardon power as a retroactive power and it supercedes the bill of rights? How does one possibly get around the clear language of the fourth amendment with him?
I’m with you on this one. If McCain was born on American soil in Guam, or wherever the fuck he was born, then Guantanamo certainly qualifies as American soil.
That’s really gonna complicate President Hillary’s NOTABFTA legislative proposal.
(North Of The American Border Free Trade Agreement)
;)
You get the BIG Bingo, today, perris.
lhp or other legal eagles -
aren’t we awaiting SCOTUS decision on consitutionality of MCA 06 ?
my crowded.fuzzy brain recalls them accepting petition wrt Appellate decision set to go into effect 7/20/8
Alcee Hastings, currently D representative from Florida was impeached off the Federal Bench in the late ’80s per wiki
That is the most recent.
When you torture someone to get information, you are “punishing” them for not giving it to you right off the bat. If they gave you the info when you first asked, there would be no rationale for torturing them (well other than pure sadism–but then you could not call it interrogation b/c the interrogation is complete once you have the info)
nope, not for me. i think it is as dumb as the whole rev wright thing but if the discourse is stuck on stupid, she is fair game and has to renounce, denounce, etc.
I didn’t realize you even could impeach a supreme court justice…
…hot damn!
I was in Sweden a couple of years ago and the US requests for airline passenger list and associated data was really pissing off our European friends. Apparently no one had much of a problem with the lists, but the “associated data” was a bit more problematic. I guess that they didn’t want Uncle Darth and Karl sniffing up their butts, and being in some US computer database until the year 3000 along with all their relatives, ancestors and descendants.
Yeah, in living memeory. IIRC there was one within the last year or so. Federal judge.
my crowded.fuzzy brain
Boy can I relate to that. Tried to defend an argument recently and my brain went all May Day on me.
Isn’t that specifically delineated power in the constitution? I don’t think it can even be discussed by SCOTUS unless perhaps if it involves impeachment, which is an “unpardonable” offense.
Fuck Nancy Pelosi and her table.
the argument is fine but the premise is flawed
you can’t torture someone for information, they will tell you whatever they think will stop the torture and the information is not nearly as actionable as methods that do not involve torture
tiz a fact
I hadn’t heard about this as I don’t watch that much t.v. and after having read it, I could seriously give a fuck.(not directed at you Kathryn) I’m a tad more concerned with folks getting their bits and pieces blown up or off and those folks criminalating (bush term, i’m sure) in the Whitehouse
I’m with you on this. Even assuming the video clip is legit, the Clinton person in question may be an ass, but that hardly comes to the level of a campaign issue worthy of national attention.
for instance, you give me one person who wants to say that torture gets information
if you have that person tortured until they say that torture does not get information that torture will last all of 15 seconds
I got some Scalia for ya right here.
And, don’t get me started on his contradictory record regarding 4th Amendment rulings. e.g., from my grad thesis:
_________
“…Lest anyone think that such Fourth Amendment fastidiousness is the exclusive preserve of the more “liberal” drug-war-softie minority on the Court, conservative Justice Scalia’s Von Raab dissent is illuminating:
____________
He then turned tail and opined in Vernonia that suspicionless drug testing was OK when it was aimed at high school students.
The “Lovably Irascible” Legend In His Own Mind.
Tru dat. One of the most famous stories to come out of the Hanoi prisoner experiences that I heard in SERE school was a pilot who was being tortured to tell his job on the ship. Seeing that the North Vietnamese were not conversant with refrigeration, he concocted a story that he was the Officer-in-Charge of the livestock on the carrier.
They apparently bought it, and stopped torturing him.
Blue Texan has a nice new post up about Turkey Bombs Iraq!
The really sad thing is that Osama bin Laden got what he wanted from the attack 9-11.
The peed-their-pants righties, these shameless chickenhawks, overreacted and are still in crazed-fear mode. Instead of responding with sense and consideration, they panicked — and they still are all afeared.
Would that they would take a deep breath all ready (it’s 2008 now) and put this all into true perspective.
hmmm
spent it outdoor? ;)
Your guess is as good as mine.
JoFish,
Sorry I won’t be able to go to Columbus–learned to drive late in life and I have only driven there one time. I sweated bullets! But I had to take my son to a dental clinic.
The Supreme Court agrees that Gitmo is Amrican soil. Understand that this “lease” thingy is just a fiction to allow Cuba a little face saving. it’s from back inthe days when the US did not want to be seen as an invading agressor
Apology accepted.
As I have stated before, any criticisms I offer of Sen. Clinton has to do with her campaign and the decisions made within it, and I would like to be free to do that without being automatically lumped in with people who don’t like her for superficial or petty reasons.
You’ll get no discussion or opinion of her hairstyles, clothing or the way she laughs from me.
I will take her to task, however, for saying McCain passes some CIC test that Sen. Obama doesn’t, for supporting a gas tax repeal that saves individuals an average of $30 over the summer while taking much needed dollars away from infrastructure repair, etc.
If Scalia had the votes on the Supreme Court, flag burning would be an expression of speech not protected by the First Amendment.
The language protecting speech and other civil rights in the Constitution, such as the right to “bear arms”, is simple. It’s the exceptions carved out to protect interests considered important to civil life – such as protecting the public from those who would incite others to riot or who would falsely yell “fire” in a cramped auditorium with few exits – that are the muscles and connective tissue on its thin bones. Those exceptions are sometimes created by statute, more often by the courts. The right to privacy is one of those.
If the president pardoned telcos, Scalia would uphold it. The President’s pardon power in the Constitution is specific and unqualified. And Scalia believes that at least Republican presidents possess nearly the powers of infallibility claimed by 19th century popes. (Ironically, an attribute claimed as a last ditch effort to stave off the loss of the papacy’s few remaining secular, territorial powers.)
If Congress granted immunity to telcos, it would apply to civil as well as the criminal wrongs (pardons only excuse federal criminal acts). Scalia would be unlikely to contest that. The President has demanded that it be so. Congress has considerable latitude to define what acts are federal crimes and to determine which behavior can be contested in federal courts.
Scalia would easily argue himself out from under the inconsistencies we might find in his views. As Bush v. Gore makes clear, Scalia agrees that “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. Except that he would ignore that the aphorism applies only to “foolish” consistencies.
The problem that I see with that is the fact that the President demanded that Congress give retroactive immunity instead of giving retroactive immunity, or even blanket retroactive pardons to all telecoms that cooperated himself. I believe that the reason this doesn’t work for him is that he cannot pardon himself, which is really what he’s after. It was the President that ultimately broke the law and he knows it. So what we have is a chief law enforcer who has broken the law and is now throwing the full weight of his office around to force congress to immunize him. And they’re stupid enough to buy it. Do the people of the US deserve what they’re getting due to their election choices? Or not?
There are some ethical lapses like Scalia going hunting with Cheney when Cheney had a case pending, and I think there was another case where a justice owned sttock or something in one of the parties and didn’t recuse himself–lousy memory attack.
I don’t know if either of those by itself would be enough.
Offering an advance opinion about how you might ruile on something that is likely to come before you has been considered really bad form, but again, I don’t know if it rises to the level of impeachable.
He’s a trip, that’s for sure!
Scalia does not believe in civil law, his loyalty is to canon law which
has no speech protections… he should not be on any court.
there it is, that’s what they want and that’s what they strive for
they want to bring back a robber baron economy where the pions pay for taking a shower and share their drinking well, where only the elite get to use a road or a beach
Margot, no problemo another time. Must be the week for dental emergencies. Finally got the root-canal I was supposed to have done last Tuesday done this morning. Hope your son is okay. Cheers!
Hehehe… you hit that right on the head. I wonder if he introduced PopeRatzi to the joys of AstroGlide?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..704/507790
They released Sami Al-Hajj yesterday.
Realistically then, LHP, and I apologize if you thought my earlier question to be flippant, which I did not mean it to be, a trifle bemused, perhaps, why should we think that ANY Supreme Court Justice would not receive the same sort of ‘pass’ accorded Bush?
Beyond the blatantly outrageous (which is always, ’subjective’) what could a SCOTUS Justice do sufficient to warrant impeachment?
I think it a moot discussion, frankly.
‘Tain’t gonna happen …
This is what Sami Al-Hajj had to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..704/507790
To see what they’re capable of doing, given an opening:
read Little Brother by Cory Doctorow.
Then wonder just how close we are to that world already.
Thanks for that link, LS, Sami Al-Hajj spoke to truth, most eloquently.
Even the American people would have to agree …
International treaties and domestic and foreign laws determine what is torture by looking at the treatment of the individual. Was the prisoner slapped or did an officer shove a broken-off broom handle up his rectum (as happened to Abner Louima in NYC)? Did an interrogator throw a Dixie cup full of water at a hooded face, a Dick Cheney euphemism, or force a quart of water into a prisoner’s lungs, inducing terror and preventing the prisoner from breathing.
To be fair to police authorities, and to guard against overly sensitive personalities, courts evaluated behavior by also asking how would an objective imaginary third-person perceive it. Mind you, there aren’t many cases, since torture hasn’t been official state policy in the West since before 1700.
The Bush torture team didn’t find that “quaint” emphasis on what happens to the suspect too helpful. Mr. Cheney wants to be a law unto himself, so his lawyers invented a new twist. The courts shouldn’t just look at how a prisoner or an objective observer might perceive having a garden hose stuck down their windpipe. They must also make a political (disguised as a legal) judgment. They must weigh the severity of the harm done to the individual against the collective need the interrogator claimed to represent.
That need is always presented as avoiding an imminent terrorist attack of gigantic proportions. It’s never presented in the more common context – interrogating for information that might be useful by interrogating the guilty who will die silently, the innocent, the prisoners who know nothing, and those whose wish to harm is matched only by their complete inability to cause it.
We face many risks, including those from small groups of fanatical criminals for whom Mr. Bush’s policies have been wonderful recruitment tools. But Mr. Cheney’s vision of how to fight them is as credible as Mr. Bush’s management of the federal budget. He envisions whatever terror is needed to compel obedience. The greater risks we face from traditional crimes, widespread political corruption and from the forces of nature as well as greed, Mr. Cheney ignores because fighting them isn’t politically useful to him.
LHP, have you seen Scott Horton’s comment here at Balkanization?