Comments on: Ending Torture: Wrong Agency, Mr. President

By: Jkat

Jkat — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:44:49 +0000

little did i know .. in november of ‘08 that i would be voting for george bush’s third term ..

it wouldn’t have changed much if i had .. mc cain’t/palin was indigestible ..

still .. i expected better than what we’re getting ..

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:27:45 +0000

That’s an odd line for the USG to take, when you think it through. If torture is done as punishment then not only is it cruel and unusual, in the detainee cases it’s also done without a verdict of guilt in a court of law, and therefore punishment without the necessary legal basis. The alternative explanation, that torture is done not with punishment as the main purpose but instead as an incidental aspect of the main purpose of interrogation, besides being disingenuous, isn’t much better as to basis.

By: DLoerke

DLoerke — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:47:58 +0000

It’s a reasonable question….

By: Jeff Kaye

Jeff Kaye — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:23:16 +0000

Right on, Marcy! (If you don’t mind some good old 60s lingo.)

I want to point out one minor but telling point. Bush is quoted as saying:

I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.

Obama also mentions torture, but nothing about cruel, unusual punishment, etc. (And I agree with Leen and others, his words are awfully hollow.)

But on this day that celebrates the CAT, let us remember that this treaty was only ratified by the U.S. with a number of “reservations,” including a crucial one that tied enforcement of violations of use of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” to the 4th, 8th and 14th amendments, thereby watering down the international meanings associated with the term. By so limiting this (a strategy dreamed up by Reagan lawyers and endorsed via non-action by the Clinton administration) to Constitutional definitions, which are interpreted by precedents in the court to those violations that “shock the conscience” (a difficult legal standard to meet), the torturers within the U.S. government sought a safe haven from prosecutions from torture or cruel, etc. treatment. That’s why Bush, in his speech, mentioned prosecuting torture, but not cruel and unusual punishment. That’s why they are so averse to calling waterboarding torture today. They want to relegate it to the lesser standard, and escape prosecution. I think in the end they will fail.

I’ve been told that Congress could rescind those reservations, which so weaken CAT. They should do that immediately. That would be a great way to honor this international document and the spirit of non-tolerance for torture and abuse of any kind.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:16:46 +0000

The compromise I suggest is closing the part used to hold people and leave the rest as the public wants. Personally I’d be happy to see it all closed.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:14:27 +0000

Speaking of “pro bono”, did anyone notice it was Sonny’s widow Mary Bono who switched over to vote for the Cap&Trade bill. At least that’s what I think I heard. Maybe Rahm got to her?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:12:03 +0000

It just occurred to me, I wonder if any of those special rendition airplanes coming from Afghanistan (or anywhere in Asia) brought more than their guests in orange pantsuits and hoods. I wonder if they brought some hash or seeds or other contraband, as happened when some people returned from Vietnam.

Who would have the records of all air flights in and out of Gitmo during the last 8 years?

It shouldn’t take much time to determine which flights were from that area and where they went from Gitmo.

By: stryder

stryder — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:29:41 +0000

how in the hell could anybody answer a question like that if you have enough gall to even ask?

By: fatster

fatster — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:15:40 +0000

Just linked this on the WaPo Omerta article, and I duplicating it here just in case. Do check it out.

Jun 26 2009, 6:02 pm by Marc Ambinder

Is Obama Moving Toward An Executive Order On Detention Policy?

“The Washington Post and Pro-Publica [ed note: collaboration!] report that the White House counsel’s office has drafted an executive order authorizing — or, rather, asserting, that the President has the inherent authority to detain certain classes of people indefinitely. (Update: Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesperson, flatly denied the report to me. “There is no executive order. There just isn’t one.”) “

http://politics.theatlantic.co....._order.php

By: fatster

fatster — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:55:45 +0000

Anybody seen Freep lately?