Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
Republicans on Wednesday delayed a confirmation vote on attorney general nominee Eric Holder, some demanding assurances he would not prosecute U.S. agents for torture if they thought their methods were in compliance with the law…
With questions about torture and other matters, Republicans invoked their right to delay for one week the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Holder, who had already been expected to endure one of the rockier confirmation processes in President Barack Obama’s new cabinet.
Holder still appears virtually certain to eventually win confirmation by the full Senate…
During his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee last week, Holder broke with the Bush administration and said waterboarding, an interrogation technique that involves simulated drowning, was torture and thus illegal.
Asked if he would prosecute for torture, Holder said “no one is above the law.” But he also quoted Obama about the need to move ahead…
Holder said he would ensure that interrogations complied with treaty obligations and were effective. He pledged to review all Justice Department legal opinions on the matter.
I don’t recall Republicans defending the “Good Germans” who only “followed orders” while working in concentration camps.
I’m very sorry for the long post…
Paddy==better than Wolfowitz. Given they are all crooks, what is important is the “transparency” of government operations and agressive/honest auditors.
Auditors.
Unsung heroes because the government gives them a position, but then won’t let them do their jobs.
The watchdogs are one major key to honest government and most if not all of them are unreviewable appointments.
I don’t expect much==but maybe. Interesting to see Obamagod’s disapproval of Biden’s joking about Judge Roberts regarding his fuckup. He really doesn’t want drama, conflict. That may paint him into corners he wouldn’t choose right off the bat.
It will be fun to see. I trust, but I’m verifying.
# 94 bobbo said, “Paddy==better than Wolfowitz.”
So much for his pledge to eliminate lobbyist from his Admin. LOL
“Change that you’d be a fool to believe in”
#92–Ah Yea==well done. I agree there are no controlling precedents, only some pretty good persuasive ones. You might be over relying on fact patterns, parties, and circumstances whereas a court might just look to the common sense obviousness of the “Chinese Water Torture” being only “American Enhanced Interrogation.” I’m sure Scalia could do that if he got the special handshake.
You have switched emphasis if not entirely ditching your original argument though which was that Congress’s taking no action was some sort of precedent on the court. I take it your new and actually relevant approach is tacitly an admission you had it all wrong?
Progress.
So==what do you think? Is “the water cure” torture or not? I think it is and only very incompetent people would advocate its use==so I’m not surprised the repuglicans champion it. Their humanity is outshown only by their greed.
#84, Ah Yea,
But on that day, no objections were raised.
Would you post a link to this? Could I see some actual proof that no objection was made? But to add to that is this gem from your link.
Ok, so now we hopefully understand that the top leaders of Congress were appraised and permission obtained to use waterboarding. If they didn’t like it they could have stopped it right then and there or anytime thereafter.
Whoa !!! I missed the part where “permission was obtained”. Secondly, it was not the Congressional delegation’s authority to grant permission to break the law. Third, there is nothing in the Constitution or statutes that expressly allows someone to break the law. Common law only provides a police officer to exceed the law in limited circumstances such as speeding to catch a speeder.
I will amend my statement to say that the top RANKING members of Congress are implicit in the use of waterboarding, which ranking members were mostly Democrats, in case you missed it.
In case you missed it, the Congressional delegation was comprised of the top members of the House (Speaker and Minority Leader), the top members of the Senate (Majority and Minority Leaders), and the Chairmen and Ranking members of the Intelligence committees. That makes eight people, four Democrats and four Republicans. The top leaders were all Republicans as they controlled both Houses of Congress.
You’re implication is that Congress has no control over the Judiciary. Wrong, so absolutely wrong it’s frightening it came from you, Bobbo.
You screwed up again. Bobbo is very correct. There are three branches of government. The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. None is beholding to the other. All statute laws are subject to review by the courts UNLESS the Congress expressly forbids it. The Supreme Court though may still rule on a law’s Constitutionality even if the lower courts may not.
Congress may only make an issue moot, they can not dismiss a properly filed lawsuit. To control any out of control Judges, they only have the power of impeachment. Congress can not tell any Judge how to rule in a specific case. All Judges, excepting the Supreme Court, must follow prior settled law. Settled law is how other courts have decided questions of law. Only the Supreme Court may alter their decision from previous decisions. Since no two cases are the exact same, and the statute law keeps changing, that still leaves a lot of room for Judges to have input.
Ah yea, you are really trying hard, unfortunately you can not just pin the blame for torture on Congress. The Bush Administration is the party responsible. To be complicit requires a party know the details before hand and have some degree of control over the situation or be a party to the actual crime.
Bobbo. Thank you. High praise!
Waterboarding is torture, no doubt about it. Anyone with a soul knows that.
And waterboarding is apparently not all that useful, but then there is that rare case where lives are actually saved and bad guys thwarted.
I didn’t mean to say that Congress’s lack of action was anything to be construed as law, but that the foreknowledge and lack of action of congress made it as culpable in the crime as the AG and others who approved it.
This is why all the talk of prosecuting those involved is just so much grandstanding. Once the new AG opens that Pandora’s box, who knows what will come out?
Fusion:
“But on that day, no objections were raised.
Would you post a link to this?
Just actually read the link I already posted in #84. It gets tiring to tell you to do your homework.
In case anyone missed it:
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a conservative, NRA endorsed, upstate Dem to replace Clinton in Senate!
LOL
#92, Ah Yea,
There are two types of precedents, Binding and Persuasive. Persuasive only has the force of opinion, and therefore is not important to us here.
Wrong again. If a court in one circuit makes a ruling, then that opinion becomes persuasive to the same case appearing in a different circuit. Although it is not binding, because another honorable Judge has taken the time to review it the second Judge is obliged to consider it. He may dismiss it, but he is expected to give an opinion why he disagrees. Appeal Courts will savage any lower court that ignores a contrary opinion without any explanation.
Attorney General Letters and “Friend of the Court” briefs may also be submitted to help the Judge make his opinion. Examples here include the Electronic Frontier Foundation interceding in a music piracy case or several Attorneys General writing a brief to the Supreme Court supporting one side in an appeal.
Where you err is in not differentiating what makes a court case. First there are the questions of law. “Is torture illegal.” Since there is statute that says it is and an explanation of what constitutes “torture” then it meets that threshold. Then, did the act alleged (the crime) fall within that definition. Only Judges can determine these “questions of law.” A question of law may be appealed by either side.
The second part is for the jury to decide, the question of culpability – is he guilty of the crime. This is usually called “questions of fact.” Juries are only allowed to decide questions of fact. Questions of fact are only appealable under extremely narrow guidelines.
The defense alleged here is called “color of law”, or that they had a right to do this to obtain information. A question of law. For example, a police officer has the authority to do things that would be a crime for ordinary citizens in the pursuit and apprehension of criminals, such as speeding or possessing drugs. To now add torture to that list is reprehensible, especially considering the DoJ already prosecuted that Texas Sheriff and his Deputies for water boarding his prisoners in order to obtain confessions. That is, coincidentally, the exact same rational used by the CIA.
So there you have case law. That case law does not have to match exactly. It only needs to be sufficiently close enough that a reasonable person can see the parallel.
Imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled a law unconstitutional, and instead of changing the law, the Government simply changed the constitution instead!
That has happened several times in our history.
One of the most famous was the 1856 Dred Scott case that upheld slavery in “Free States”. That led to the XIII and XIV Amendments abolishing slavery.
Then there was the Income Tax issue so Congress changed the Constitution to allow Personal Income Taxes to be levied.
#99, Ah Yea,
Just actually read the link I already posted in #84. It gets tiring to tell you to do your homework.
You posted a link to a story where a lot of comments were made by unnamed sources.
You also cherry picked your comments while avoiding (or ignoring) the comments that contradict you.
Who made those comments and who is the politician that wanted stronger measures? Your sly innuendo of trying to say the Democratic Leadership is responsible for waterboarding is BS. Both Senatot Dashle and Representative Pelosi were Minority leaders and did not have much power.
The facts remain that the Administration ordered the torture of prisoners. There is no court that could possibly convict Pelosi or Dashle.
Telling some members of Congress who were sworn to secrecy BEFORE the briefing is not the same as briefing the entire Congress or even the Intelligence committees. Even the Intelligence Committees are sworn to secrecy and may not reveal what they were told in secret. By the time the Intelligence Committees were informed, Bush announced that they would not torture anymore.
None of that lets the CIA or the Administration off the hook nor is an alibi for the right wing nuts to shift blame from where it rightly belongs.