Torture memos released

[Central Scrutinizer]

considering that we're talking about putting someone in prison, I would need, I don't know... evidence beyond a reasonable doubt

... only if you're seated on the jury!

[MattZ]

considering that we're talking about putting someone in prison, I would need, I don't know... evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a causal connection between specific events of torture and the person we're putting in prison. and so should all of you. it's kind of the basis of our criminal justice system.

 

My post was directed at Sullivan's continual causal connections of things like "Cheney says he supported waterboarding" = legal fact supporting the imprisonment of Cheney this afternoon, and if that doesn't happen, the free world no longer exists.

 

if it is so absolutely clear to Sullivan that Cheney committed a war crime, why does he not cite the specific law that was violated and the evidence that satisfies the jurisdiction's evidentiary burden?

 

Poon- I agreed with SpeedRacer to move on, but my initial post was directed at you, so I suppose i should respond. I can't speak for Sullivan, but I am curious what you mean by causal (bolded) above.

 

If we agree for purposes of this discussion, that waterboarding=torture=war crimes, what sort of causal connection would you need to see for a VP? The VP doesn't have the power to implement policy on his own. If that's the case, could there ever be a direct causal link?

 

ETA: as for the law violated, GON cited to one in his link, but are we really debating whether torture violates law?

[Atticus]

I love you Matt, but here I'm just lost. By causal connection I mean a showing that Cheney engaged in some action which directly lead to illegal waterboarding.

 

Without looking at a specific law, how can I possibly make a point as to a VP's criminal liability? a vice president stating publicly that he supported waterboarding is not some kind of admission sufficient to put that VP in prison, which is what Sullivan seems to suggest. If there is a specific law that says waterboarding by a U.S. soldier is an offense punishable by a court of competent jurisdiction, and Cheney put said actions into motion, then maybe Cheney can be held accountable for same. I don't know because I haven't seen the law or know to whom it applies! The point is that just because an executive branch officer makes a statement of opinion ("I support") does not support someone in Sullivan's position to claim that if Cheney isn't thrown in jail democracy has failed entirely (in my opinion).

[MattZ]

I love you Matt, but here I'm just lost. By causal connection I mean a showing that Cheney engaged in some action which directly lead to illegal waterboarding.

 

Without looking at a specific law, how can I possibly make a point as to a VP's criminal liability? a vice president stating publicly that he supported waterboarding is not some kind of admission sufficient to put that VP in prison, which is what Sullivan seems to suggest. If there is a specific law that says waterboarding by a U.S. soldier is an offense punishable by a court of competent jurisdiction, and Cheney put said actions into motion, then maybe Cheney can be held accountable for same. I don't know because I haven't seen the law or know to whom it applies! The point is that just because an executive branch officer makes a statement of opinion ("I support") does not support someone in Sullivan's position to claim that if Cheney isn't thrown in jail democracy has failed entirely (in my opinion).

 

Let's leave Sullivan's hyperbole ("democracy has failed") out of this, and I am glad that you love me. I love you too.

 

I think Cheney did more than simply admit to supporting a policy. Far be it from me to suggest that someone's opinion is enough to get them hanged for war crimes. I think that Cheney admitted to advocating for a policy, as a high ranking administration official, that was ultimately adopted by the administration, and that he (or his side) "won" the argument. Sullivan's hyperbole aside, that's enough of an admission to me that he had a crucial role in the adoption of the policy and deserves closer scrutiny. No, it is not enough for me to convict if I am on the jury.

[Atticus]

I'm just glad somebody loves me.

[Atticus]

not sure if this has been posted before, a friend just sent me this link to a video showing a waterboarding scenario:

 

linkylink

[mountain bed]

Jesus Christ, they're gonna get off the hook. Evidently Holder thinks Yoo, Bybee, etc. are only guilty of 'poor judgement'. I think I'm gonna be sick.

[Moss]

not sure if this has been posted before, a friend just sent me this link to a video showing a waterboarding scenario:

 

linkylink

 

 

Here is a similar one.

 

Mancow waterboard