Corporations Are Persons, Gitmo Detainees Aren't. Welcome To Our Brave New World.
If any of your loved ones are serving abroad, you might be interested to know the Obama administration, by virtue of SCOTUS's refusal of the case, just got the Supreme Court's blessing to torture. Obviously, other countries will follow our lead:
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because at that time it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal.
Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.
The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."
Finally, the circuit court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantanamo had any constitutional rights.
The circuit court ruled that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."
That opinion was written by Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson, who was appointed to the federal circuit court by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and to the Appeals Court in 1990 by George H.W. Bush.
The British detainees spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to Britain in 2004 with no charges ever having been filed against them.
Eric Lewis, lead attorney for the detainees, said, "It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when the Supreme Court lets stand such an inhuman decision. The final word on whether these men had a right not to be tortured or a right to practice their religion free from abuse is that they did not."
"The lower court found that torture is all in a days’ work for the secretary of defense and senior generals," he added. "That violates the president’s stated policy, our treaty obligations, and universal legal norms. Yet the Obama administration, in its rush to protect executive power, lost its moral compass and persuaded the Supreme Court to avoid a central moral challenge. Today our standing in the world has suffered a further great loss."
Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, co-counsel on the case, told IPS, "In many ways the opinion the Supreme Court left standing today is worse when one gets past the bottom line – no accountability for torture and religious abuse – and digs into the legal reasoning."
"One set of claims are dismissed because torture is said to be a foreseeable consequence of military detention," he said. "How will the parents of our troops captured in future foreign wars react to that?"
we have turned into the USSR?
I am so ashamed of my government!
No America is not the USSR, we are now Nazi America. I second your ashamed of the gov't comment. I can't believe a judge would rule that "torture is a foreseable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants". Judges can be impeached, and the judge who wrote that needs to be removed from the bench. This is the consequence of 30 years of republican presidents. They have stacked our courts with right-wing extremists. I feel like I'm living in a nightmare that I can't wake up from.
It is the fault of Big Dems who will not clean up the mess they were elected to clean up. It's all about the money, greed and power. D's and R's are the same in that regard. Just talk and spin the rest.
our DOD or maybe even the Justice Dept. God, it is sickening.
Americans are americans.
That epithet is bad enough.
Outside of the few of us who have nothing better to do on a perfectly good Christmas shopping weekend than be appalled by this ruling, I assume most of America couldn't give a rat's ass what happens to a ferriner. Those practices will never be unleashed domestically.
It's just one of those things empire does. Like the way we have supported oppressive governments in central america to bring us cheap imported goods. Those oppressive labor practices in third world regimes will never be used against us where we have strong labor laws, unions and a rich economy, right? Same with torture. Just because we're getting a taste for torturing ferriners, can't ever happen here, right?
"The circuit court ruled that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."
That is the single most horrifying ruling by a US judge I have ever heard. In a civilized, first world, country he would be impeached and all of his rulings would be reviewed.
..torture, anal rape, and death from neglect would be logical consequences of being jailed for any crime. I'd hide that stash of pot pretty damned carefully if I lived in the States.
Then again, why bother. If a cop wants to plant evidence on you then testilies in front of the current authoritarian courts, what recourse will you have?
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
These are the kind of powers emperors enjoy. What has the USA become?
(from the article) "...there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad."
You can argue that in the courts, but we all know what the USA has become: it's very clear.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
The US has become a Rogue Nation and a Extremist Empire in conflict with the free world.
The notion of free world now does not include the United States.
The leaders of the US and Israel should be careful to not step into a country which still abides by international law.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
I don't mind corporations being persons in that they can sue each other, and petition the government when it is making a decision that effects them.
But corporations shouldn't be allowed to dominate the system, be kept to smaller sizes that can be allowed to fall, and not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, or run campaign offices, or bundle votes etc. Additionally, since they are not literally individual persons I think fairness in advertising laws should affect their political commercials like any other kind of advertising, and their "think tanks" should be identified as corporate directed.
But we have to make a clear delineation between profit and non-profit corporations and unions. I get so frustrated when talking heads get on TV and argue that any law to roll back corporate rights would mean rolling back the rights of say the Teacher's Union or the Toilet Scrubbers Union.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Corporations are people, but without that inconvenient soul that needs to get to heaven. Instead, people with souls use corporations as "avatars" to make all the soul-less decisions in their lives. This effectively allows them to participate in great sins while still going to church and feeling "clean."
At least, that's how I would put it in religious terms. . .
Actually, watching the movie "The Corporation" makes is clear that Corporations, were they to be judged as people, would be psychopathic. They will kill, harm and destroy anything that gets between them and money. Including the government they are founded in.
Corporations being people would be great, if they could be jailed for their crimes and if they harm others with their products or actions. Perhaps capital punishment for board members who knowingly allow others to die when they could be prevented.
That is what it means to be a person. RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONs.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
to the fascist state. Enjoy.
this ruling of our
fucking lowlifesupreme courtwill give sanction to other countries of various religions to
take American citizens/soldiers and crucify them. nail them
on crosses or walls as justification because America
supports torture and humiliation of others' religious beliefs.
shame on American courts for putting Americans in harms' way and
demeaning the human race.
Imagine a world where the argument against torture was that it is morally reprehensible and NOT because Americans might get tortured too.
Morally reprehensible behavior is tolerated when it is politically convenient. They wanted a new pearl harbour to get the terror rolling and omg, it happened just as they 'predicted'.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
Please tell me that this is from "The Onion!" I'm in shock - though I shouldn't be with the conservative creatures we have on this court.
We have definitely entered a 'brave' new world. It's one filled with cowards. This decision is one of the worst in our history. It will rank with Plessy v. Ferguson and the one that declared corporations as having the same, now more, rights than people.
I would gladly forsake my American citizenship and move to Canada. Anyone up there care to adopt a 51 year-old male? I'll work hard. And, living up there, I'll have less stress, so I'll gladly give us smoking.
That would be Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
'Teabaggers' were protesting, sometime violently, and the local law enforcement was standing idly by or assist them.
A far cry from when anti-war types walk the streets. They would be battered under the new regime if they tried.
People were thrown out of boosh rallies for little more than wearing t-shirts that said, "Give Peace a Chance."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wos-dDxpJlQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
n/t
Obama the war monger and his Department of Justice for the Cronies.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Good to see the protection of the previous regime being carried out...
But when you do not fire all the previous regimes political appointees, then its not surprising.
How many of Bushco's AGs are still working their magic.
This is Obama's DOJ. Eric Holder is in charge and this is what he has directed be argued before the court. As tempting as it is to think that rogue Bush appointees are behind this, they aren't. This is Obama's DOJ and this is the position his administration has taken. God help us all. America is over.
The lovely Reichfeldmarshal Richard Gates. Appointed by Bushco, and continuing Cheney's wars under Obama.
They might be nice people and peace loving doves, but the 'news' says otherwise.
To our prisons abroad what the hell good is it being American.
If we are just the killers on the block that smiles before we knife you in the back what fucking good is something like that?
I knew the fuckin republicans were insane now it looks like everyone in our government is out of their fucking minds!
WE have got to empty washington it is the only chance we have to survive!
How can we "spread democracy abroad" when we refuse to extend the "blessings of liberty" abroad when we have the chance?
Explanation?
"Spreading democracy abroad" is the codephrase for turning foreign nations into corporacratic institutions ..
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
"Spreading democracy abroad" is the codephrase for turning foreign nations into corporacratic institutions ..
Absolutely correct. "Reform" is the code phrase that means totally dismantling an agency or law that takes too much money out of the hands of our dear corporate leaders.
Specifically dismantling anyone who will not accept corporate rule.
Socialism is evil because it's rule by the people, and that means that the 'slaves' get to sit at the 'owners' table.. The owners in America don't really like that.
So they make wars, invade your country and bomb the piss out of you.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
So are rights alienable purely on the grounds of geography now? Someone in Cuba, Afghanistan, Romania or Canada has no rights, is not even acknowledged as a person?
I think it's time for citizens of other countries outside the US to petition their governments to boycott your country altogether. No trade, no commerce, no travel - a pariah state. You can keep your self-anointed exceptionalism, just keep it within your own borders.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
I always read the Declaration of Independence the same way.
".. all men are created equal .. endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..
.. includes EVERYONE regardless of birth ..
And btw .. that "Creator" could be Mother Earth, Nature, DNA, or whatever ..
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
is not the constitution and has no force of law.
That said, this is a very sad day for America, and yet another example of how useless Obama is turning out to be.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
If you put all the paper aside for a minute, this is very telling of the truth about the American Empire: the spirit, the ideals.
You can put anything on paper, it only means something when men live by it, when men feel they must live by it, paper or no paper, because it is just and right, and humane and civilized.
Now we see these justices don't believe that. Power and exceptionalism are more important.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
-they won't acknowledge, or practice rights for Americans. Of course thats already happened Jose Padilla, hasn't it?
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006024
Shame on the United States.
Shame on the Democratic Party.
Shame on Barack Hussein Obama.
Time for a third way folks. It's our only hope. And NOW is the time to start....before it is too late.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
The only way to get meaningful changes that benefit the people instead of a small cabal of corporate/bank/political elite, is to drag them all out into the streets and kill every last one of them.
Historians will consider the biggest failure of the Obama administration to have been their early decision not to support hearings, investigations and potential prosecutions of Bush administration officials involved in illegal activities. It would have been the courageous thing to do and lord knows, after the disaster know as the Bush Presidency, we needed (and were hoping for) someone with backbone and courage to lead us out of the lawless wilderness. Everything went downhill from that decision. The Dem base became disillusioned by it and the Republicans became emboldened by it. That Obama has adopted many of Bush's policies has only added salt to the wound. I cringe every time I hear Obama say America respects the rule of law. It's so transparently false.
There would be a chaos in Washington and else where, if the guilty were brought to book and removed from their 'jobs', government would collapse from all the missing civil servants missing from their desks/golf-course.
While I understand your point I have to disagree. There already is chaos in Washington (and elsewhere) so I don't see further "collapse" as a good enough excuse for reform. Without it, there will be a much worse "collapse" down the road.
Normal gov might go on, that might be upsetting for the guilty.
..if they do more harm than good?
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
When I saw Obama hugging Bush, back-slapping Bush and posing for pictures with him, and then I saw Biden with Cheney posing for pictures I knew we had been betrayed.
Then Obama started with his, "We need to look forward and not to the past,"...that sealed it for me.
It's PAST time for a third way.
The Democratic Party has become like Lucy and the Sheeple Democratic voters like Charlie Brown.
I'm not going to run kick their football again. Are you?
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
We always hear from a sizable group that we have to give them time. Someone will write a list of all the great things that Obama and his team of cutthroats has done for the US. I've said it before the election and I'll say it again, the only real change Obama makes will be for the worse. He'll make some cosmetic changes to the areas that have the most apparent damage and point to it like he's saved the world. Meanwhile he and his gang of criminals will continue to rape and plunder undaunted by criticism or more likely the (extremely) mild rebuke of the talking heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnAvTTaJjM
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
No Constitutional right not to be tortured? This is an insane legal position. And, it's foreseeable that if you capture, you will torture?
Oh, you just have to love lawyers!!! To the WALL.
Unfortunately, the IV and V amendments would allow for almost anything as long as due process is followed, and then due process is never really fully defined.
The self-incrimination, which torture could fall into, only seems to be in the Vth amendment, and that involves the trial, not pre-trial events per se.
Personally, I think that should throw out the evidence, but that might be open to interpretation.
And since the Colonial British were known to torture, I would say torture is against the Founding Father's intents, but some could argue that's speculative.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Now, when traveling abroad, a foreign military may pick up any American and declare them an enemy combatant, throw them in jail and torture them to death. When this happens, what can our government say in our defense? Nothing. Our Supreme Court and Department of Justice just told the entire world that this was perfectly legal.
Not quite, there's always American Exceptionalism as per Alexis de Tocqueville's De la Démocratie en Amérique (1835 and 1840).
However, it could lead to a more war torn period as these potential incidents you cite might serve as casus bellis.
And who would benefit the most?
Corporations making anything that can be cited as war materials.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If that happens and our government complains, the foreign military will hand them a mirror.
NOBODY 2012
Ah I remember it well...the teary jubilation as Obama won the election and everyone here thought the dark days of Bush were banished and freedom and justice were restored.
Well, I told you that this shite would not end because Big Ds and Big R are the same stuff in different packages.
Welcome to Amerika, some of us have been here for a while, some still will not believe it, cannot accept it, but its true.
I think C+L and its readers need to decide if they want to be a progressive site or a sell out Big D site and which will be more effective and influential. At this point, the stakes have never been higher and it looks to me like we got a one termer.
My name is Big John and I am telling you again.
We have the Brit version of 24 on sale on a previous post/thread.
I knew Big John, Big John was a friend of mine. You're no Big John.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx59fmP7jYE
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
same as the old boss.
NOBODY 2012
all null and void.
Thanks a lot GWB/Obama.
Not quite, the Supreme Court interprets both laws for constitutionality as well as has powers extending to treaties. But right now it's dominated by conservatives and Catholics. Unfortunately in the case of the latter, they still have the Summis Desiderantes Affectibus of Pope Pius VIII (1484), as precedent in canon law, never having been officially overturned.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I could name a few international treaties and agreements to which the US is a signatory that most commenters here would be glad to ignore. WTO ring a bell? NAFTA? CAFTA?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Re-negotiate or revoke per Senate action.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
How about revoking the Senate/Congress/President/lobbyist/Supreme Court instead? Start fresh with people who are not bought and paid for.
... at least for me. I'm for exiting NAFTA and for huge reform in the WTO, but I say that outright, and I call for a lawful exit.
Obama plays lip service to human rights out of one side of his mouth and orders a cover-up of war crimes out of the other.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
With Bush at least we got warning ahead of time we we're being screwed regardless if we liked it or not.
From the quoted article [emphasis mine]:
Obama did not ask for the resignation of the entire DOJ when he took office, although that is standard procedure for incoming Presidents.
So, outside a few key appointments, the Obama DOJ IS the Bush DOJ.
Which explains why almost all the Obama DOJ decisions are exactly what one would have expected from the Bush DOJ.
And why the Obama DOJ is not about to investigate the Bush DOJ.
Sucks, huh?
When Obama's not following the Clinton agenda he's following the Bush agenda.
Some change, huh?
Thom Hartmann and Don Siegelman discuss Obama's retention of the Bush DOJ at about the 5 minute mark (the whole clip is worth watching):
Don Siegelman: Is President Obama leaving Siegelman behind?
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
It's a mystery to many why this somewhat routine "house cleaning" has not been done. Just another disappointment.
Either:
a) Obama was a cynical sellout from the beginning with no intention of following up on his rhetoric;
OR
b) between the election and the inauguration someone got to him, either with threats of blackmail (everyone's got something in their past) or threats of assassination (or worse - he's got a wife and kids) or (as Thom Hartmann opines) with veiled threats and promises of a comfortable life (like Bill Clinton) after he does what the corporacrats want.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
c). He's been true to his word, and is conducting himself in a non-partisan manner, and he's waiting for Congress- that's us- to make him do our collective will.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You are kidding, right? I mean really?
It's possible, if Obama is something of a strict constructionist.
The Constitution makes the president merely the Chief Executive in charge of enforcing decisions by Congress.
We decry a more powerful presidency when it's in the hands of the conservatives, but when it's our turn we want one equally as powerful, to undue their "damage."
When it's up to our Congress to legislate laws, or legislate reformist laws to overturn the previous ones.
However, there's some lee-way as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, with the power of Executive Order to help determine war conduct, as well as the chief negotiator of foreign treaties.
But I can't seem to recall any proviso authorizing torture in the AUMF nor the Patriot Act.
And agencies like the FBI, the CIA and DOD are under the Executive Branch which he heads.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Elect more progressives to Congress, get more progressive laws. And, while we're at it, we should clarify while we codify, leaving no loopholes, no room for judicial review.
I don't think the President should rule by executive order, whether the President is regressive or progressive. I don't think this President should be the mirror of the last President.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Ummm...loopholes are often protections in the Constitution, the very thing we're trying to protect
Or vague language.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...having this conversation. The Geneva Conventions don't clearly take into consideration conflict between states and non-state armed movements, while the US constitution and legal code don't clearly specify whether or not those held by the US, outside of the US, are subject to Constitutional guarantees.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
That's what I mean by vague language
Although there's something to be said for changing developments.
However, we have some precedent with Jefferson's War against the Barbary Pirates, but I can't find a lot of info on that. And it appears the pirates fought to the death.
Additionally, under our legal system, we could only try any captured terrorists for attempted crimes or being accessories before or after the fact, since their strikes are so often suicidal, we'd only have collaborators left.
Of course, then there's the individual fighter in the streets, not the soldier of any recognizable state, but attacking our forces. But since most revolutions to create a new state also have the same ambiguous status, the Geneva Convention would seem to still apply.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Common Article 3 protects everyone involved in an armed conflict.
This was never even debatable though George W. Bush and our compliant MSM did pretend there was some issue. Perhaps they remembered old war movies where the spy didn't get the same protections that a soldier did. This is true, as far as it goes (e.g. a soldier cannot be tried for murder for kills made in battle).
But Common Article 3 makes no such distinctions; it applies to "armed conflict." The law in this area is crystal clear including protections against torture.
There's also that pesky Eighth Amendment to the Constitution that defines the limits of US governmental power.
(sorry for sounding a bit preachy, but there simply is no legitimate legal cover for these actions - just the raw power to avoid prosecution)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
But article III of the Convention Rules are:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
___________________________________________
The problem here is the line, "...(I)ncluding members of armed forces who have laid down their arms."
They're not armed forces if they are part of no recognizable state, nor are they innocent bystanders, and it doesn't say whether they laid down their arms voluntarily or not.
And they could still be accessories before and after the fact, if they hold information we need.
And can the ICC at Hague act as a Supreme Court with Judicial Review of the articles when questions arise, or only later for war crimes tribunals?
(Hmmm...maybe my question is answered by reference to the term detention).
And now that I think of it, this article provides the floor, or the minimum of what is expected, if States want to provide more protection, more power to them, especially one that preaches about human rights abuses.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... or those "out of the fight." Prisoners qualify.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
That reads to me as if it applies to civil wars.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I was just catching that when I then saw your comment.
It's in the line, "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties..."
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I bet though, even in armed conflicts that ARE of an international character, signatories of the convention are expected to have these protections from other signatories.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... it will, by definition, have two or more state actors and Common Article 2 will apply.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Found it:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And insurgencies, rebellions, and all other situations that have all the indicia of war save the existence of opposing state actors.
Common Article 3 is a loophole closer; it's very purpose is to apply minimum standards to state vs. non-state situations.
[on edit - this was to Andy at 12:09 above]
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld addresses this very issue finding Common Article 3 protections apply to Guantanamo prisoners.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Actually Hamdan v Rumsfeld seems to concern itself with whether or not the president can set up war-time tribunals without Congressional approval.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The Court examined whether Bush as president could set up tribunals pursuant to his war powers. The Court recognized that the president's war powers were limited by the "laws of war" as set out in the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...that's an inarguable point. And I think that the that's kinda the point of the current administration's argument: that the former administration was acting in good faith with the claim that Article III is ambiguous.
But without a smoking gun- like a Bush administration memo that says, "Look, it's pretty clear that torture violates Article II of the Geneva Conventions, but fuck it, we'll claim confusion"- that you've got to assume that the prior administration was acting in good faith.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Another problem with Article II is we're no longer technically at war with Iraq since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but are supporting a government "friendly" to us.
That must be why booshco, and now Obama has avoided usage of the term "occupied."
But it would apply to the Iraq government's treatment of prisoners, since it falls under Article III, and presumably mandating that we follow Article II or get out.
But then does anyone know if Iraq is a signatory?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I should have said they haven't used the term occupation, since occupied sounds like they're in the can.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
John Yoo helped write it.
This is nothing new. Hate to do it, but Godwin be darned - we are talking war crimes after all.
John Yoo was hardly the first; nothing done under the Axis powers during WWII was illegal. They all had lawyers giving opinions that purported to legally justify that behavior.
We prosecuted those lawyers for war crimes.
There simply is no ambiguity: torture cannot be used as a tool of war. It really is that simple.
Of course, torture advocates (or advocates of nearly any illegal activity) will claim confusion to lessen their culpability, but that doesn't mean we have to buy into it.
In boot camp it was quite simple, if we were given an order which we felt might violate the rules of war (e.g. "Torture that prisoner"), we were to ask for clarification, and then refuse the order if we still felt it was unlawful. This was our clear duty.
And while I could think of many scenarios in which it might be difficult for a soldier to decide what was right, whether or not to torture prisoners is hardly a close call.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/national/07...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...that article also reads:
There's your loophole. Claim a "Global War On____" and drive the truck through.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
First, reduce the technical reading of the law to a war movie or Wikipedia level of understanding. Then rely on other torture proponents to desperately grasp at any strand they can find to justify these crimes.
Even the very conservative Supreme Court of the United States would have none of that nonsense.
I get that Bush, Obama, and other supporters of torture may not like the law. But they should have to follow it until they change it.
Hows that for The New Democrats? A constitutional amendment repealing the Eighth Amendment and legalizing torture.
Sounds like a bipartisan initiative if there ever was.
On more technical grounds, were the conflict "global" it would involve multiple state actors in addition to being an armed conflict. This hardly escapes the Conventions' requirements and indeed may impose more stringent requirements than those contained in Common Article 3.
I gotta say, Andy, I never thought I'd be debating with you whether or not torture was illegal.
Are you sure continuing to back this guy up is such a good idea? It's gotten you on the wrong side of an argument involving torture.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Here's the pdf. of the Yoo memo. Yoo's argument is just what I've always thought it was- it's the directions to the (perceived) loophole.
Second, I'm not saying that I think torture should be legal (but I can see how- since I'm not toeing the progressive line in my comments- you'd think differently). I'm pointing out that there are loopholes in the laws that need to be closed, and I'm saying now they can't be permanently closed by executive order. Presidents can reverse previous executive orders. Congress needs to nut up and start doing its job. Congress needs to pass legislation to close these loopholes. And if we, as a nation, really want to close these loopholes, we should pass a constitutional amendment that spells out that we don't allow torture, no way, no how.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
But you are saying that it is somehow legal because there are (as yet unspecified) "loopholes."
That's Bush's argument, and he set it up beforehand.
And I'll take a pass at reading Yoo's memo again. It is a clear fraud upon the law, and that is why I specifically mentioned it as a "smoking gun". He ignores precedent directly on point: e.g. the Reagan Justice Departments prosecution for waterboarding (then known simply as water torture), and relies on ridiculously strained, out of context, readings of existing authority to falsely justify his conclusion.
We are talking about a scientist who has just offered a paper stating that gravity is a force that pulls us up. Just because he wrote that paper does not mean there is a legitimate dispute about the nature of gravity.
Yoo & Ilk were writing on a topic just that basic with a conclusion just that impossible.
Lawyers often have legitimate disputes over the reading of the law. This is simply not one of them.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Since up and down are relative terms....And seeing that the Sun, which is "up" from our vantage point, actually does have a certain amount of gravitational pull on the planets...But you can end the argument by stating what is correct- that gravity is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.
See how that loophole is closed with precise language?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Supporting this president has you arguing the nature of up and down to justify why torture is legal.
You're a skilled debater, but you are well aware that all you could do was poke at the hypothetical. The point was still made, though it could have been made better.
How about a mathematician publishing a paper on how 2+2=5? Now I suppose you can come up with some quantum mechanical argument about why that is "debatable," yet does that still cause a justifiable confusion so as to relieve a fraudulent accountant from liability for an embezzlement charge?
But, moreover, what are you doing defending torture?
Use your powers for good, Master Jedi, they are sorely needed.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Again, I'm not defending torture. Am I playing Devil's Advocate? Probably. But I'll tell you what: I wish someone had been playing Devil's Advocate on this issue, gaming out the possible arguments that Yoo actually used, in the decades leading up to the point where we actually saw this playing out. We might have been able to close this loophole before it was exploited. And before you say it again, the loophole is there, no matter how much any of us would wish that it wasn't.
And now I'm going to tell you something you may choose to believe or not: I don't think I ever read the Yoo memo until about 5 minutes before I posted the link above. So when I made that initial interpretation @12:09 ("That reads to me as if it applies to civil wars."), I wasn't informed by the Yoo memo. If it took me two seconds to see the ambiguity- or, rather, the inapplicability - of Common Article III, I'm sure a lawyer like Yoo saw it in about one tenth of a second.
So here's where I use the Force for good: Recognizing that current law is ambiguous and not applicable to all situations, I'll advocate for law that is unambiguous and applicable. I'd call that progress.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
We're talking about international law. Just because Yoo made an argument that is appealing to someone who only briefly brainstormed an issue or perused his memo does not make it a legitimate argument.
It's not like this is the first time this issue has been examined. Think Slobodan Milošević didn't have lawyers writing "get out of jail free" cards?
We've only been talking Geneva Conventions, but there are also the Conventions on Torture and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Torture is illegal. It is a crime against international law and the laws of this country including the Constitution.
Ambiguity is found only in the eyes of those that wish to torture or those who wish to excuse crimes against humanity.
Of the very conservative Supreme Court of the United States, only Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito could bring themselves to allow for such a, um, tortured reading of the law. And both Scalia and Thomas have previously advocated that torture (which does not leave marks or cause death or organ failure) as not constituting a crime within our domestic criminal justice system.
Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Bush, Yoo, Obama, Holder, and Milošević... definitely not my preferred intellectual or moral company.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
International law is not binding to non-signatories.
And there you're shifting emphasis away from torture and the treatment of prisoners to genocide.
The term genocide was not even used in the Geneva Conventions nor in its Additional Protocols, so you're fluctuating between Article III and Article II; however, they did have this:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html...
But to the victors goes the spoils, including the right to hold war trials.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And as for the 8th amendment is says no cruel or unusual punishment, and punishment generally follows a trial. The torture we're talking about is generally before or instead of trials, since some are held indefinitely.
Then there's the whole debate on whether the Constitution covers non-citizens, which I believe it does, since it usually refers to the accused irregardless of citizenship status.
And they could counter with Amendment V, and attempt to bog us down on what threat to limb means as I believe both yoo and alberto have done.
Interesting thing though, recent laws passed by conservatives to punish Americans who go abroad to take advantage of the Child Sex rings could possibly be applied in these situations as well.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
They've been settled in large part. The "it's not punishment so I can torture" has been brought up by law enforcement regarding their interrogation techniques. No dice.
As for non-citizens, they are also protected despite the wishes of Lou Dobbs.
The only remaining debate regarding alienage is to what extent laws discriminating on that basis are valid.
In short, there may be a debate on equal protection grounds, but that's about it. Criminal due process certainly applies.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Sounds like your just paraphrasing my last paragraph.
And as for, "As for non-citizens, they are also protected despite the wishes of Lou Dobbs," that's already settled under Article III since that's concerns how we treat people in our own country, and that we are signatories.
When I spoke of non-citizens, I meant in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
As for the Eight Amendment it is a restriction on governmental power. It is not limited with regard to the object of the cruel and unusual punishment, it simply says flat out that the government cannot impose it.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
But it remains unclear as to whether it applies to detainees in other countries.
That may be partially why our Founding Fathers wanted America to stay essentially neutral.
Bails and fines are clearly concerning trials, and excessive punishment the results of said trials.
It's in our Anglo-American history where sometimes highway robbers were ignored, sometimes deported, sometimes jailed, and sometimes despite no previous records and no murders executed to make an example of in English law.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Though Milošević and his filth were prosecuted for genocide and a host of other crimes, I was referring to prosecutions under Common Article 3 which focused on the used of sexual assault as a weapon of war. These particular prosecutions also involved non-state actors.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
But for the US involvement in Iraq we'd have to use the provisos of Article II.
Milošević was rightly prosecuted on Article III since he was attacking people of his own country.
And I forgot to point out that the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent) is not a part of a larger group like the ICC or the UN, but only of the RC.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... but I'd say that initially, Article 2 would have applied. However, after the Iraqi state was defeated and we were an occupying power fighting against non-state actors, it would be Article 3.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Maybe under the Coalition Provisional Authority of L Paul Bremer, but now they have their own government, whether or not they're our puppets.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Again, just thinking out loud...
I'd say that in clashes between US and Iraqi forces, Article 2 would apply, but in clashes with US and/or Iraqi forces against "insurgents," Article 3 would apply.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No because actually then we should be subject to Iraqi law.
But try passing that by the average American.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Yeah but ..
As I pointed out, Obama could have done what all other presidents have done - demanded the resignation of the entire DOJ - but he didn't.
He chose to keep the Bush DOJ despite his soaring rhetoric during the campaign.
And .. he chose to surround himself with Clintonistas. We nominated Obama, not Hillary, but he doesn't seem to have understood that fact.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
...and replace, en masse, Bush's DoJ appointees?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
What exactly does the word "change" mean to you?
You're stretching credulity beyond the breaking point.
Go ahead .. twist your mind like a pretzel to defend the indefensible .. but your rhetorical quibbles are NOT going to change the RAGE many of us feel.
This is NOT "change we can believe in."
Obama pledged that the debate on Health Care would be transparent, conducted on C-Span.
Didn't happen.
And that's just one more LIE he told.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
If you voted for Obama on the basis of one vague word- "change"- rather than actually paying attention to his actual policy positions, there was a damned good chance that you were going to be disappointed. You- or, rather anyone who bases their vote on a feeling- set yourself up.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Don't play naive.
It ill suits you.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
I didn't hear "Hope" and "Change" and assume I was getting the pony I always wanted for Christmas.
If you wanted to know what Obama probably meant by campaigning with those words, you could have listened to his speeches and read his campaign literature to figure out the intent. Then you could figure that half of what he intended would be watered down in the process of negotiating with any of his opponents.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
".. you could have listened to his speeches and read his campaign literature to figure out the intent .."
You're kidding, right?
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
...like this summer, when commenters were all over Obama for backing off of single payer...Except that Obama didn't campaign on single payer, but he did, in the Blueprint For Change, campaign on someting akin to the public option:
No Medicare buy-in there, even! Yet how many of his voters thought.....?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
But what does that have to do with torture
For the medical treatment afterwards?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...the perception of Obama's policies versus what Obama actually campaigned for.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
He's kind of like a Veg-a-matic. Looks great on TV, but when you get it home... tomato, splat, everywhere.
Clinton would have been too, and McCain/Palin, well, you decide.
Kucinich would not have been elected.
Summation: the system is very broken. That's the problem.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
You jump to an absurd conclusion in claiming that Clinton would be anything at all like Obama. The lesson of the past year is that experience matters and being prepared is different than not being prepared. Let's nominate Hillary in 2012 and then we'll get to see what leadership looks like!
thanks to all the DEM operatives, who told progressives Obama's campaign was a 3-D chess game...HHHAHAHA ! It was all bullshit. The problem with the Democratic Party is that it is all bullshit but there's no bull to throw its weight around.
Did you vote for more of the same knowing what it was?
..that Democrats are still afraid of being labeled partisan, but Republicans just revel in it?
A: (it was a rhetorical question) - because the corporate-owned media will NEVER describe Republican actions in those terms, even when they're blatantly partisan (as in the Don Siegelman persecution) and will ALWAYS hang the label on Democrats even when the partisanship is of the type that is essential to democracy (like having policy positions that differ from your opponent.)
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
obama, 2006, speech on senate floor:
I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.
**********
But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.
This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.
http://obamaspeeches.com/091-Floor-Statement-...
His word was "change". He has NOT kept his word.
And lets get one thing clear: Defending torture is NOT non-partisan. Torture is neither left nor right - it is simply cowardly/despicable.
It was a change in the way the government works, how the executive stopped being the just the chief executive and had become the chief legislator as well, while the Congress became something of a rubber stamp for the President.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I don't even see change in the way the govt works. It's still all back room deals that favor the corporations and screw the people.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
WE elect those Representatives and Senators who are cutting those deals.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
On the one hand I agree with you that probably the most important thing we can do to change the situation is to elect more progressive representatives (but let me remind you, we thought we'd elected a progressive president, and we now see how well that's working out).
However, it wasn't congresspersons who pledged a transparent health care reform - it was Obama.
And he's the one who cut the deals at the outset.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Consider also the main point of this thread: the Obama DOJ has defended instances of torture committed by the US, going so far as saying that torture is "a foreseeable consequence of military detention."
At the same time that the US has thousands of persons held in "military detention" where torture is a "foreseeable consequence."
And yet Mr. Obama himself has stated on several occasions, "The US does not torture."
How is this a change from the Bush presidency?
How does this repair our stature in the eyes of the world - one of Obama's signature campaign pledges?
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
One thing I will say is perhaps moving the detainees to Illinois is one small step in preventing torture based on this ruling (yet not outlawing it either!!!)
"...there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad."
I am not defending this decision in any way, but maybe he is trying to reign in some of the worst abuses and abusers.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Tell me then, what in this story is the change you speak of? Because it sounds just like the Bush administration.
Part of changing the way the government works is to clean up the mess that was created by whoring themselves to any special interest group with money/power. Not more of the same.
and this is one of them....
911 never again....not so sure...
Once the family holidays are out of the way and the next round of economic woes bite.
don't write one more check to a political organization until you see that they are actively working for your agenda and producing real RESULTS.
*Applauds Loudly*
NOBODY 2012
We might be saved by real world economics... ;)
Their economic policies are as sane as their militaristic ones.
amazing that the country's first mixed race president's DoJ is taking a Dred Scott-esque stance in the case of america's torture victims.
and, susie, excellent 'title' to the thread: "Corporations Are Persons, Gitmo Detainees Aren't"
of course we are talking about gitmo torture victims. obama is still protecting america's use of torture-as-policy in bagram and god knows where else.
Right after Obama's election I recall Wanda Sykes saying something like: "He's a black man now, but if he screws up we'll all be calling him half-white by the end of his first year."
Bingo!
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luke Chapter 6: 30-37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GmVajkqLNU&NR=1
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I think its clear Obama and his people thought they would be able to pull the wool over our eyes for years to come. And now that it's failed and people are rebelling against his gift to the Insurance companies and banks he and the dems are trying to rush this Democrat Corporate bribe they called reform and there other bribe regulation(HA).
I also think it funny as hell that some of the democrats think there going to use Bush for a 3rd time to win an election.
Solution: drones, robotic flying insects, etc, etc.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
The turruists (in Iraq) are monitoring the video feeds. Prob in Afghanistan/Pakistan too.
High tech global supremacy is not a American/western monopoly now.
rendered useless with $30 software.
Or should I say usefull for the enemy. Smart guys these lowly insurgents or whatever they are.
"$4.5 million dollar predator drone rendered useless with $30 software."
It's a sad state of affairs.
NOBODY 2012
I heard it's only $26 !!
..
..
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
as blackwater/Xe has been doing for years and years: recruit from the rightwing death squads in central/south america and eastern europe that are in need of cash and use them as corporate-profit-fodder.
Robotic Flying Insects sounds like the title of a new Cartoon Network show.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Comments are closed on this entry