| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is waterboarding torture? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 19 2009, 07:36 AM (978 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jan 20 2009, 11:13 AM Post #51 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Change George can believe in. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 20 2009, 01:38 PM Post #52 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Thank you, Ax. We might not agree on many things, but I applaud your intellectual honesty and consistency. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 20 2009, 02:29 PM Post #53 |
|
Finally
|
Change the Congress can't believe in. The fact that the AG designess says it's torture doesn't make it so. Put aside all the moralistic posturing of everyone on both sides of the issue. The definition of "torture" is not clear from the statute. From that statute, a cop saying "Tell me who did it, or I'll call your mother" can be construed as torture, because it causes mental anguish. When Congress explicitly says, "THIS ACT is torture," it's all BS. That's why I started this thread. As far as I can tell, there's no statute that defines what torture is, and whether waterboarding qualifies. Yes, there are many people here who think it is, there are many in Congress who think it is. But until it's legislated, I don't see how it can be considered anything but an opinion by everyone. As I said, time to grow a pair and say: "Yes, waterboarding is torture, and we pass this law that prohibits it." Otherwise, keep pandering. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 20 2009, 02:35 PM Post #54 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Actually, George, it DOES make it so, because of prosecutorial discretion, and because the AG's opinions are binding on the government in the conduct of its business. If the AG says it's torture, and you do it anyway, you're at great risk to be prosecuted. You may win, at the end of the day ... after many years, and a lot of legal fees, and loss of your job and public scorn and all the other collateral consequences ... but you'll never have your life back the way you had it. As a result, no one will risk it. So the AG's opinion is, in effect, binding as it pertains to the behavior of government employees. Now, as far as growing a pair goes ... there wasn't much of a pair to grow while Bushiepoo was waving his veto pen around, and while Republicans had a veto-proof minority. In fact, there's nothing to say that the Republicans wouldn't try to filibuster such a change in the Senate, even today. But, given Holder's opinion, it's not particularly urgent any more, now is it? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Jan 20 2009, 02:39 PM Post #55 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm withholding judgment for now. However, if he's half as good as his inauguration speech, I'll be happy. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 20 2009, 02:46 PM Post #56 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Since Quirt has set the standard of civil discourse again with his "Bushiepoo" and "Georgie boy", unless the liberals here are going to call him on it, it seems only fair that no one has to refer to President Obama with any deference either. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 20 2009, 02:51 PM Post #57 |
|
Finally
|
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Quirt (except for the "Bushiepoo" part, that is). So, if the AG (or any prosecutor) says something is illegal, and it's not clearly defined by statute, I have a potential legal liability? If there is no posted speed limit and the cop (and, presumably the town attorney) feel I was going too fast, I can get a ticket? Or a more ridiculous example, if the AG feels that chewing gum in public (and not spitting) it out is illegal, because there's a law saying that eating in public is against the law, I can be prosecuted for that?
And you have no problem with that? The threat of prosecution is enough to deter someone? Which office does someone go to get their reputations back? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jan 20 2009, 04:01 PM Post #58 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Veto proof minority? Wazzat? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jan 20 2009, 04:10 PM Post #59 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
If they really wanted to stop it rather than make political hay with it they would. But they also pretty well knew they would be in power next and wanted to keep their options open. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 20 2009, 04:13 PM Post #60 |
|
Finally
|
Even Obama has left that option open. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| VPG | Jan 20 2009, 04:19 PM Post #61 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Any one want to translate these results of the poll? 547 Views 19 yes 8 No 0 Not sure I said at the beginning of this there should be another choice. WG'sAF. |
|
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK! "People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 20 2009, 04:45 PM Post #62 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
We can deal with your hypotheticals in a moment, George. Let's start with the facts in front of us. We have a statute that's capable of more than one interpretation. We have an interpretation of the plain language that is consistent with common understandings, before the Bush Administration started changing the rules. If the AG announces that he agrees with that interpretation, and that certain conduct is illegal, you have to have ... to use a term somewhat like yours ... the stones to violate the law, risk prosecution, and then challenge the interpretation in court. Few people want to take that sort of personal risk. Or, to flip your challenge on its head, Congress, if it doesn't like the AG's interpretation, is free to enact legislation saying that waterboarding is NOT torture. Got the votes for that in your pocket? Hmm? Now, as to your hypotheticals. The prosecutor's authority is always bounded by the law itself. In general, a prosecutor will not take a marginal case alleging violation of an ambiguous statute. He'll wait for a truly outrageous example. In your speeding case, if it's not clear whether it's a statutory violation, a typical prosecutor won't ordinarily try to prosecute someone for going one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. He'll wait for the guy who's doing double the limit. Now, if a prosecutor brings a case that has absolutely no statutory basis, there's typically a legal remedy. It's called wrongful prosecution. A prosecutor is typically protected from liability in the exercise of his powers. However, if the prosecution has no reasonable basis under law, the prosecutor can be typically be sued for wrongful prosecution ... or, in other words, acting outside his authorized powers. Which, of course, has nothing to do with Holder's interpretation of whether waterboarding is torture, since that's squarely within most common understandings of the word "torture". You can argue that he's wrong ... but I don't think you can reasonably argue that his interpretation is so unreasonable as to be outside his lawful exercise of his powers. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 20 2009, 05:00 PM Post #63 |
|
Finally
|
So something that is not explicitly described is something I can be prosecuted for, right? Something that is not explicitly allowed is something I can be prosecuted for? Wow. I understand your thinking, and the practicalities of is. I am amazed that, under our system of government, there is something unnamed that may send me to jail. Something that someone (the Attorney General) thinks is illegal. And, unless I have the stones to fight what I consider an illegal or wrongful prosecution, I'd better behave, just in case. Wow, again. And a statute that can be interpreted more than one way (and, by saying that, you're allowing that there is at least the possibility that some may consider waterboarding not to be torture) must be tested by someone risking his livelihood, his reputation, etc. Wow yet again. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 20 2009, 05:11 PM Post #64 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Any of this surprises you? Thus it has always been, thus it will ever be. This isn't the French system, where every crime must be spelled out in graphic, exhausting detail. This is the English system, where statutes are open to reasonable interpretation. Given a little time, I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples where you'd be nodding along and saying, "Damn straight! I'm glad the prosecutor interpreted the statute that way!" If you don't like the English system of jurisprudence, blame John D'Oh. By the way, let me give you a terrific example of this principle, from my own area of expertise ... securities law. Do you know what law prohibits insider trading, and a host of other unethical activities? Let me quote it for you, in its entirety, as it was originally written:
General enough for you? It gives the Department of Justice (because yes, it's a criminal law) the power to prosecute the use of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance". Plenty of people have gone to jail, screaming all the way that they were being prosecuted under a novel and never-before-used interpretation of that statute. And you know what? They SHOULD have gone to jail. Because the law has to be general and flexible enough to cover the creative minds of swindlers and cheats. A more specific law would have millions of loopholes, and investors wouldn't be protected. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 20 2009, 05:15 PM Post #65 |
|
Finally
|
Interesting... |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 20 2009, 05:18 PM Post #66 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
By the way, you asked what the protections are for the ordinary citizen against prosecutorial misconduct. One of the protections is a series of Supreme Court cases that says that, under the Constitution, a person must have reasonable notice that his activity might be considered criminal. Of course, that series of cases is raised almost any time anyone is prosecuted under any new theory. It rarely works ... but it sometimes works. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 20 2009, 10:26 PM Post #67 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Tell that to Moonbat -- he thinks that agents of the government would torture in violation of the law if absolutely necessary, and that judges would see that it was necessary and grant them leniency. And on those assumptions he would hang the safety of the civil order.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 20 2009, 10:30 PM Post #68 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It's called "transgressing the unwritten law"
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 21 2009, 03:17 AM Post #69 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Only in very rare scenarios - e.g. a ticking atomic bomb and a suspect whom they were certain beyond a shred of doubt knew the location. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 21 2009, 03:25 AM Post #70 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The point is ... you'll never know beyond a shred of doubt that he knows. It's an unreal hypothetical. At any rate, if that unreal hypothetical were to occur, Jack Bauer would torture him, and the consequences be damned. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 21 2009, 03:34 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
You'll never know with analytical certainty but I would have thought it logically possible to dream up scenarios (albeit unlikely) where someone could have certainty beyond reasonable doubt (or even well beyond reasonable doubt). Though as I say I don't think they are very likely. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Red Rice | Jan 21 2009, 04:44 AM Post #72 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If he's Dr. Evil, he knows. ![]() |
|
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool. I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss! - Cecil Lewis | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










11:07 PM Jul 12