So is Lynndie England gonna get a pardon?

[Biggirl]

Disgusting.

“Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.

It’s nice that they blamed the retarded girl. It was all her idea.

[Boyo_Jim]

Interesting that you posted this within a minute of me resurrecting the last Lyndie England thread, also about the White House acknowledgement of their involvement in planning torture.

No she won’t be pardoned. She’s not important enough.

[kambuckta]

@Boyo Jim

No she won’t be pardoned. She’s not important enough.

I hope that she will be exonerated, because her name is known internationally, and thus she is important enough (in the scheme of things) to be publically excised of the crimes she supposedly committed.

If the US Defence Dept continue to hang upon her the guilt for these crimes, then they’re well and truly fucked, and all the world will know it!

[Gatopescado]

@Biggirl

It’s nice that they blamed the retarded girl. It was all her idea.

Not retarded, just ugly.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Boyo Jim

Interesting that you posted this within a minute of me resurrecting the last Lyndie England thread, also about the White House acknowledgement of their involvement in planning torture.

There was no acknowledgment of torture. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” are not necessarily torture.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

There was no acknowledgment of torture. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” are not necessarily torture.

Waterboarding is torture by any definition anywhere in the world, except for what comes out of the White House. And waterboarding was discussed and approved during these meetings.

Is your next claim that if the President says it isn’t torture, it isn’t torture?

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Boyo Jim

Waterboarding is torture by any definition anywhere in the world, except for what comes out of the White House. And waterboarding was discussed and approved during these meetings.

Is your next claim that if the President says it isn’t torture, it isn’t torture?

Do you have a cite that waterboarding is (not might be) torture under US law? The current Attorney General did not know if was torture when asked. John Yoo’s work shows that there is at a minimum a serious question as to whether waterboarding is torture and that when looked at carefully waterboarding probably is not torture under the law.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020801_JD_%20Gonz_.pdf#search="bybee%20memo%20pdf"

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Mr Bush will sign a long and legally dubious blanket pardon of anyone who ever did anything to anyone anywhere in an attempt to preclude war crimes trials that would soil his reputation. A side effect will be to short-circuit criminal investigations. As a result, it will be decades before we learn who did what to who.

"Those who cannot dismember the past are content to repeal it. "
-Pogo

[Steve_MB]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

Do you have a cite that waterboarding is (not might be) torture under US law? The current Attorney General did not know if was torture when asked. John Yoo’s work shows that there is at a minimum a serious question as to whether waterboarding is torture and that when looked at carefully waterboarding probably is not torture under the law.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020801_JD_%20Gonz_.pdf#search="bybee%20memo%20pdf"

Remember when we all laughed at Clinton for engaging in this sort of semantic sophistry?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

Do you have a cite that waterboarding is (not might be) torture under US law? The current Attorney General did not know if was torture when asked. John Yoo’s work shows that there is at a minimum a serious question as to whether waterboarding is torture and that when looked at carefully waterboarding probably is not torture under the law.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020801_JD_%20Gonz_.pdf#search="bybee%20memo%20pdf"

US DOJ memo, December 2004:

This opinion interprets the federal criminal prohibition against torture codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. It supersedes in its entirety the August 1, 2002 opinion of this Office entitled Standards of Conduct under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A.

    That statute prohibits conduct "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." This opinion concludes that "severe" pain under the statute is not limited to "excruciating or agonizing" pain or pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death." 

   The statute also prohibits certain conduct specifically intended to cause "severe physical suffering" distinct from "severe physical pain." 

Note that this memo contains a specific reference to the August 2002,\ memo you reference and states it has been “withdrawn” – it is no longer relevant to legal definitions of torture.

Questions have since been raised, both by this Office and by others, about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002 Memorandum, and also about various aspects of the statutory analysis, in particular the statement that “severe” pain under the statute was limited to pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Id. at 1. (5) We decided to withdraw the August 2002 Memorandum, a decision you announced in June 2004. At that time, you directed this Office to prepare a replacement memorandum. Because of the importance of–and public interest in–these issues, you asked that this memorandum be prepared in a form that could be released to the public so that interested parties could understand our analysis of the statute.

   The CAT defines "torture" so as to require the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Article 1(1) of the CAT provides: 

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
The Senate attached the following understanding to its resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the CAT:

The United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Cases in which courts have found torture suggest the nature of the extreme conduct that falls within the statutory definition. See, e.g., Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 789, 790-91, 795 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that a course of conduct that included, among other things, severe beatings of plaintiff, repeated threats of death and electric shock, sleep deprivation, extended shackling to a cot (at times with a towel over his nose and mouth and water poured down his nostrils), seven months of confinement in a “suffocatingly hot” and cramped cell, and eight years of solitary or near-solitary confinement, constituted torture);

[threemae]

Even under the most expansive powers claimed by the Bush administration for the executive branch’s ability to subject prisoners to torture for national security reasons etc., when did President Bush ever tell Ms. England that she was allowed to torture? As a number of current soldiers on this board will testify, military indoctrination on this point is rather unambiguous about the type of abuse engaged in by Ms. England and others being unacceptable. I’ll conceed that her chain of command is also likely responsible for not clearly disallowing it in Iraq, but her actions are still her own.

In fact, I’d find it much more concerning in terms of setting up a military that’s receptive to torturing prisoners if the military failed to prosecute her. As always, shit rolls downhill, but she’s not an entirely innocent target.

Hopefully, with the incoming administration, these lines against torture will be redrawn and clarified.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Boyo Jim

US DOJ memo, December 2004:

Note that this memo contains a specific reference to the August 2002,\ memo you reference and states it has been “withdrawn” – it is no longer relevant to legal definitions of torture.

That is because of all the bad press they got. The legal reasoning is still valid.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

That is because of all the bad press they got. The legal reasoning is still valid.

You asked for a cite, which I provided, written by the DOJ. Waterboarding, specifically, is listed among those behaviors that constitute torture. This memo also specifically withdraws its endorsement of the memo you’ve cited.

Besides that fact that Yoo’s reasoning has been disowned by his own organization, the DOJ Office of Professional Standards is also investigating the origin of Yoo’s memo. It is alleged by JD insiders that this memo was produced without adequate professional peer review and without reference to legal precedent. The investigation is not yet complete, but the office has decided there is sufficient evidence to launch an invetigation.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Boyo Jim

You asked for a cite, which I provided, written by the DOJ. Waterboarding, specifically, is listed among those behaviors that constitute torture. This memo also specifically withdraws its endorsement of the memo you’ve cited.

I’ll quote my post from the other thread:

For the legal issues to be sorted out, we will need court decisions. Until then, it is all just opinion. Yoo’s opinion is as valid as any and more valid than most.

So, do you have a cite from a court with the authority to actually sort out this issue or just the opinions of different organizations without the authority to decide this issue?

[Frylock]

As far as I know no direct connection has been indicated between the administration’s approval of “enhanced interrogation techniques” referenced in the OP and what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Anyway, even if there were such a connection, what are the legalities here? Isn’t following an illegal order itself illegal?

-FrL-

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Cite? Sure,

Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361, 362 (Miss. 1926)

For those who do not keep the proceedings of the Mississippi Supreme Court at hand at all times:

. . . [T]he hands of appellant were tied behind him, he was laid upon the floor upon his back, and, while some of the men stood upon his feet, Gilbert, a very heavy man, stood with one foot entirely upon appellant’s breast, and the other foot entirely upon his neck. While in that position what is described as the “water cure” was administered to him in an effort to extort a confession as to where the money was hidden which was supposed to have been taken from the dead man. The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed . . .

[Lobohan]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

Do you have a cite that waterboarding is (not might be) torture under US law? The current Attorney General did not know if was torture when asked. John Yoo’s work shows that there is at a minimum a serious question as to whether waterboarding is torture and that when looked at carefully waterboarding probably is not torture under the law.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020801_JD_%20Gonz_.pdf#search="bybee%20memo%20pdf"

If waterboarding is bad enough to break everyone in less than a minute, doesn’t that suggest it’s torture? What the fuck is it if it isn’t torture. Reasoned debate?
If shocks to the nuts don’t break people in a minute, doesn’t it stand to reason that waterboarding is in fact, worse that shocks to the nuts?

Not to mention that we aren’t allowed to do mock executions. Is waterboarding less or more cruel than a mock execution?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Guys, I have a court ruling that waterboarding is torture. Does that not end the discussion? Is this not a legal finding?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

I’ll quote my post from the other thread:

So, do you have a cite from a court with the authority to actually sort out this issue or just the opinions of different organizations without the authority to decide this issue?

Perhaps if you actually read my post #10 through to the end you will see that the DOJ memo was quoting a court decision that found waterboarding constituted torture.

[kaylasdad99]

@Boyo Jim

Originally Posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun
There was no acknowledgment of torture. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” are not necessarily torture.

Waterboarding is torture by any definition anywhere in the world, except for what comes out of the White House. And waterboarding was discussed and approved during these meetings.

Is your next claim that if the President says it isn’t torture, it isn’t torture?

Maybe not. But it does follow that if the President says it isn’t torture, it means that the White House isn’t acknowledging torture.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: