Terror Trials in NY

[chucklesR]

Erps,

quit letting facts get in the way.

[sck5]

yes they upheld the general concept of tribunals. they rejected the tribunals as they were actually set up. See here

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/wa...nd-scotus.html

Thats one reason to get them out of the military at this time - They had a chance to do it right and completely screwed it up. Many people (including virtually all of the rest of the world) lost faith in the ability of the tribunals to do a fair and impartial job long ago. The Supreme Court agreed and is among those who dont have that faith.

Many in the US have trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that people in the rest of the world dont trust us and are afraid of us. That perception hurts us - We used to be the example everyone looked to for inspiration. Torturing people to death without trials and secret military tribunals are some big reasons why that isnt true any more. Conservatives may have forgotten all of this or may choose not to believe it - The rest of us believe our eyes.

but hey, dont let facts get in the way.

[sck5]

by the way erps, your link is to something written by John Yoo. He is the genius who wrote the legal briefs justifying torturing people. He is the one who thought that unless something causes "pain equivalent to organ failure" it isnt torture. He alleged that making people think they were drowning didnt count because merely thinking you might die isnt as painful as, say, kidney failure.

the only reason he is in the position he is now is because when they searched through the justice department they couldnt find anyone who would say such absurd and horrible things until they got pretty far down in the ranks and got to him. A real helluva guy.

[erps]

yes they upheld the general concept of tribunals. they rejected the tribunals as they were actually set up. See here

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/wa...nd-scotus.html

Thats one reason to get them out of the military at this time - They had a chance to do it right and completely screwed it up.

sck5. What's the date on that decision you keep quoting?

Is it true or not that there has been legislation since then that addressed the courts concerns?

Since you don't like Yoo's opinion on the constitutionality of military tribunals, would you be more accepting of Obama's?

President Obama to Reinstate Revamped Military Tribunals - Political Punch

Sck5, I haven't given an opinion one way or the other about trying this fellow. I was merely addressing a fact you were using that is misleading though.

[erps]

Originally Posted by sck5

by the way erps, your link is to something written by John Yoo. He is the genius who wrote the legal briefs justifying torturing people. He is the one who thought that unless something causes "pain equivalent to organ failure" it isnt torture. .

Torture is defined by statute. What you are calling torture may not meet the statutory definition. Yoo apparently has some legal training and credentials. Do you? If the answer is no, how much weight should be given to your opinion on the legal definition of torture?

Here is a link to a memo on torture written by John Woo. I'm not sure if it's the one you were referring to or not. Perhaps you could point out the flaws in his analysis?

Dept. of Justice Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to White House Counsel Re: Interrogation Methods that don't violate torture prohibitions

[chucklesR]

Torturing people to death

Name one?

Not one of the hundreds beheaded, or tortured by them. Name one we tortured to death.
Polemic and hyperbole have no place is a serious debate/discussion. That's just one example, I assume therefore you are not serious.

[knothead]

Two words.

O. J. Simpson. (ok, one word-two initials)

You let a bunch of nitpicking lawyers get a hold of this thing and there is a real possibility that some very guilty people will get off.

They were not read their rights. They were tortured.
They were held without charges.

Hell, any half assed lawyer will come up with a litany.

What I can't figure out is what Obama has to gain by the whole thing.

There is no reason that a military tribunal couldn't have performed it's duty and the whole mess would have just gone away. Now the spotlight is shining and and he's on the hook.

Gonna be interesting.

[sck5]

"Torturing people to death"

Back when all the pictures of Abu Ghraib surfaced there were some of dead bodies that had been beaten up badly. I call that "torturing to death" If you would rather call it "beating to death" then that is an OK description too I suppose, but I think the distinction would be lost on the dead guy.

I dont want to get into an argument about what torture is. If you are one of those who says in effect "It isnt torture unless we legally define it as torture" then you deserve to be waterboarded until you change your mind. Nobody else in the world has any doubt about it, including the USA until John Yoo wrote his opinion to justify what the Bush administration wanted to do. We know that because we used to prosecute people as war criminals for waterboarding US soldiers. Either we were wrong to do that after WW2 or we are hypocrites now. You cant have it both ways.

[PBzeer]

Why let them plead guilty in a military tribunal, as they requested, when you can use them to go after Bush? Holder's decision has nothing to do with justice, only with politics.

[erps]

We know that because we used to prosecute people as war criminals for waterboarding US soldiers. Either we were wrong to do that after WW2 or we are hypocrites now. You cant have it both ways.

I happen to agree with you and this point above is compelling for me. I just find the personal attacks on others who don't share your opinion disagreeable.

If you are one of those who says in effect "It isnt torture unless we legally define it as torture" then you deserve to be waterboarded until you change your mind.

You're missing the point. It's not about what I think is torture. It's about what a prosecutor has to prove is torture in a court of law for a successful prosectution. There is a difference. And I hope you really don't mean what you said.