Justice Dept Releases John Yoo Torture Memo

The Justice Department today released John Yoo's 2003 torture memo to Congress. This is the infamous memo that the Bush Administration relied on in justifying it's "harsh interrorgation techniques" on prisoners overseas. This was the memo that was in force when the Abu Ghraib detainees were subjected to cruel treatment and torture.

Part One of the memo is here, and Part Two is here (pdf.)

Shorter version: Yoo wrote the Constitution is not in play.

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does "not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.":

The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don't apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.

The memo also says the Geneva Conventions don't apply al-Qaida and the Taliban. [More...]

Yoo prepared the memo for William Haynes,"then the Pentagon's general counsel and another key player in the administration's legal strategy." Haynes left the job in February after it was disclosed he told a military prosecutor there could be no acquittals in the military commission trials. Bush nominated him for a federal appeals court judgeship. He wasn't confirmed.

Yoo is now a law professor at University of California at Berkeley.

Sen. Patrick Leahy said of today's release:

Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress.

The memo they have declassified today reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration. It is no wonder that this memo, like the now-infamous “Bybee memo”, could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn. Like the “Bybee memo”, this memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.

Balkanization has more here and here.

< Howard Dean: Only 2 Ways Fl and MI Will Be Seated | Late Night: Working Class Hero >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Outrageous (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    ...but alas, old news.  Sometimes I even wonder if the public gets worked up about this?  When I read this nonsense I wonder if I even live in America.

     I had the opportunity to meet Yoo last fall and listen to a debate he had with my faculty adviser over FISA.  Terrifying.

    I don't think the public ever cared (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    There was a brief outrage over abusive photographs, but I think the American people overall don't mind torture in the interests of "national security"... as long as it's only "terrorists" who are being tortured.

    They care, they are just too embarrassed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:21:42 PM EST
    to discuss it. Especially with the stuff with China and the Olympics. We have people protesting China's human rights violation, including Nancy Pelosi. She should shut up, given she hasn't done squat to stop the torture our government is engaged in. We used to be able to take the high ground because we didn't behave that way. Those days are over, even if the majority of Americans do not approve of torture, the government use of it has stained our honor forever. Don't think for a moment that the average citizen doesn't know this. And is ashamed of it. That's why you don't hear a lot about it. People don't discuss things they are ashamed of.

    Having shot at US servicemen??? (none / 0) (#100)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:08:46 PM EST
    That doesn't make a terrorist. It's a war zone.

    People who shoot at US troops and are caught are POW's.


    Nope (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    The definition of who is a POW is quite definitive.
    Merely shooting at US soldier does not make one eligible to be considered a POW.

    Brad DeLong is considering asking the UC Senate... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM EST
    Based on today's memo releases, Brad DeLong is considering asking the UC Senate to examine the idea of revoking Yoo's appointment on the grounds of moral turpitude.

    He's not sure whether doing so would violate academic freedom.

    Now might be a good time for lawyers to write an email to Professor DeLong with your insights....

    Bad idea... (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    ...I can just hear the "anti-PC" police now.  Perhaps he should just resign and leave.  He can't be happy there.  He called it a People's Republic when I saw him.

    The first thing: disbarment. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    Someone like John Yoo has no business even holding a law license in the first place.  Either before, or alongside, the effort to thrown him out of the UC law school, the man's license to appear or act as an attorney needs to be revoked.

    Throwing him out of a teaching position doesn't take away his ability to do harm. Neither will disbarment per se. However, while disbarment won't keep him from breaking bread with his fellow war criminals at the Heritage Foundation and other GOP retirement homes, it would, like the disbarment of Scooter Libby, do much to delegitimize his career, the evil causes he and others devoted their lives to, and the personal life he built with it.  It may not be true internal exile, but it would have to do.

    It would allow everyone, and everyone, to think anytime he said something "from his experience" or when anyone said anything about him that "didn't he lose his law license for that? What an idiot."


    Jeralyn, could the ABA take a stand on this issue (none / 0) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    This particular link from Balkanization has pdf downloads for the Yoo Torture Memo.

    I really appreciate this quote from the other Balkanization link:

    "The memo cites numerous other, as-yet-unreleased memos...Those memos should be released immediately. More importantly, I think Congress should strongly consider NOT CONSIDERING ANY ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS UNTIL ALL OF THE MEMOS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND (APPROPRIATELY) REPUDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE."

    Question: Could the American bar Association take a stand to support this foregoing idea about Congress? Would it be 'appropriate'? If so, would it have any more effect than the ACLU?


    FYI Foxhole (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:34 AM EST
    The ABA did take a stand against it, and adopted a position paper years ago.

    Been a while since I read it, but it called on Bush to "restore our traditional liberties."


    Thanks for that, SMJ (none / 0) (#31)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:20:48 AM EST
    I was, more specifically, asking whether it would be feasible/effective for the ABA to support this recommendation made by Marty Lederman at Balkanization:


    (emphasis in original)


    I think the House (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    is already doing this.

    See Pelosi's stand on the much needed FISA bill which, btw, has been passed by the Demo controlled Senate.


    They could (none / 0) (#33)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:26:01 AM EST
    but it's really up to Leahy and Waxman.

    My point was the ABA has gone on the record already. Logistically, they would have to meet and vote on it, and it would have to be during their national convention.


    Leahy & Waxman have to be motivated by (none / 0) (#41)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:48:57 AM EST
    public outrage. However, the general public doesn't do large-scale outrage much anymore.

    I imagine it would have some impact if the ABA supported something like Marty Lederman's recommendation (as quoted in my first post).


    Waxman is my congressman (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST
    he's motivated. So many scandals. So little time.

    just a psotscript (none / 0) (#45)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:55:14 AM EST
    really don't want to get your hopes up on blocking all legislation.

    It's an election year.

    It will be up to Waxman and Leahy to plodge it through committee.


    Does Academic Freedom cover 'Moral Turpitude' (none / 0) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    This question is for jerry above, or anybody who may know the answer. (I think the answer is no, but can't be sure.)

    Freedom is freedom (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM EST
    His actions while employed by the government have not been shown to be improper, illegal and/or immoral. Your disagreement with him is just that. Your disagreement.

    Yoo's justifications turned the Nuremberg trials (none / 0) (#65)
    by kindness on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    on their heads.  Essentially he says bringing harm to a prisoner is OK if the Executive branch says so.

    Sorry but torture is immoral, it is illegal and just because some yahoo in the Department of Justice says it isn't doesn't change the law nor the US's treaty obligations.

    Yoo, Addington, Darth & dubya should all be tried.


    Define torture (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    As for him being a "yahoo."

    He's there and you are commenting on an Internet blog.


    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > 2340 (none / 0) (#108)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:49:02 PM EST
    § 2340. Definitions
    As used in this chapter--
    (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
    (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
    (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
    (B) 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;
    (C) the threat of imminent death; or
    (D) 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....

    Seems pretty clear to me.


    Buddy....look in the mirror. (none / 0) (#120)
    by kindness on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    Where do you think you are?  I mean, if you want to call me a nobody because I'm here, feel free to.

    I don't share your views.  I don't share your attitudes, and I certainly would prefer not to share your company.

    But for what ever reason, you keep baying at the moon, right here with the other dirty hippies.


    Uh... I'm not your buddy (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:45:47 AM EST
    and if you don't want to be called out on your actions, quit calling people names.

    Freedom, i.e., (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    an army of lawyers and equivocating cowards to hide behind.

    Many people ... don't seem to think so (none / 0) (#9)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    There are links over at Brad's site, but many people I've read seem to think that Moral Turpitude is grounds for revoking tenure and academic appointments.

    But what do I know, I barely know how to spell moral turpitude.


    Yoo is at UC Berkley, of all places (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:20:11 PM EST
    What is with the students who allow these thugs to be hired at any institution of higher education? Why do students even allow these unrepentant outlaws to even speak at their campuses?

    All of these SOB's salaries, and lecture fees, are being paid for by the students' TUITION FEES and our TAX DOLLARS.

    Couldn't that money be better spent on more edifying Professors and guest speakers who aren't refugees from the Bush Administration.

    Yoo et al may have a right to make a buck, but not directly at our public expense.


    I'd rather have him at Berkeley than (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:25:37 PM EST
    the DOJ, at Berkeley he can be ignored. At the Justice Dept. he can't. Either way, it's tax dollars he gets paid with. Maybe he can go work at the Hoover Institute, with Condi.

    Evidently, Yoo can't 'be ignored' at UCB (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
    He's currently in national, and international, news.

    My point is that he shouldn't be working anyplace where he is being paid with public money (i.e. tuition fees, tax dollars).

    If he is still working at UCB, if/when, he gets investigated/prosecuted, he can be granted leave and continue to get paid.

    By all means send him back to the GOP private sector from whence he was spawned.


    My concern (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:44:48 AM EST
    is that he may be infecting young impressionable minds.

    Either way, it's tax dollars he gets paid with. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    So there's no tuition??

    Tuition at state universities is (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    markedly lower than tuition at private schools. The reason for that is that the state funds its universities and so does the federal government. Therefore, most of the costs of a state university are borne by the taxpayers, both in-state and out.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    So I suppose you support the right of tax payers firing Left Wing professors such as Ward Churchill??

    And I know of no schools that don't get some federal pork.


    I live in Berkeley (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    It's not the old Berkeley or the Berkeley of mythology.  

    A lot of (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:54:10 AM EST
    "liberals" have been suckered.  Washtenaw County (U of Michigan) was one of two(of 83)counties where Uncommitted won out over Clinton.

    Clinton carried Ingham County (Michigan State).


    No... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
    ...but a) it is almost certainly not moral turpitude and b) it is a bad idea because every time someone makes a move like that I get to hear right wingers advocating "ideological diversity" and blasting the "PC Stalinism" of "elitist" universities.



    Alec82, you seem to have a unique grasp of this (none / 0) (#13)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:24:35 PM EST
    a) Please define "moral turpitude"; b) Explain why Yoo's actions don't meet the definition.

    I don't know ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
    ...how that term applies to professors in academia, but at least in the law it generally refers to conduct offensive to morals, community standards, etc.  The typical examples are fraud, larceny, extortion, etc.

    considering (none / 0) (#16)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:01:55 PM EST
    the ACLU failed to protect a police officer who was fired for having a porn site (not in uniform fyi)  in san francisco of all places, i think this fairly well fits within current interpretation of the law.

    and it's far more extreme than the above example...wherein a judge said SF had a right to be concerned about its image.


    Yep (none / 0) (#51)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    Alex82 gets it exactly right. The only times I've seen it come up, it's usually related criminal acts or extreme dishonesty.

    No, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:16:31 AM EST
    I don't think so.  You can hold some pretty crazy views without having to worry about "moral turpitude."  I'm assuming you're asking this with an eye to his ability to teach/retain his license.  
    It's still amazingly sad to me that we've had to have a real national debate on how much we can torture, or that memos like Yoo's were ever seriously written.  

    New article in Vanity Fair nails DOJ.. (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    it says that it was NOT the military that went overboard and then others went along with it. The impetus to use torture came from the DOJ itself. This is from the intro on the front page of Vanity Fair's web site.

    As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn't talk, the Bush administration's highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army's own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure--then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war-crimes charges.

    This is from the actual article..

    The Bush administration has always taken refuge behind a "trickle up" explanation: that is, the decision was generated by military commanders and interrogators on the ground. This explanation is false. The origins lie in actions taken at the very highest levels of the administration--by some of the most senior personal advisers to the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. At the heart of the matter stand several political appointees--lawyers--who, it can be argued, broke their ethical codes of conduct and took themselves into a zone of international criminality, where formal investigation is now a very real option.

    Yoo's memo wasn't written until a year after the torture policy was implemented at Guantanamo. Here is the part that made me sick to my stomach..

    November 2002 "action memo" written by William J. (Jim) Haynes II, the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense, to his boss, Donald Rumsfeld; the document is sometimes referred to as the Haynes Memo. Haynes recommended that Rumsfeld give "blanket approval" to 15 out of 18 proposed techniques of aggressive interrogation. Rumsfeld duly did so, on December 2, 2002, signing his name firmly next to the word "Approved." Under his signature he also scrawled a few words that refer to the length of time a detainee can be forced to stand during interrogation: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

    While the Bush Administration was blaming the troops for "going overboard", they knew the torture was started, implemented and approved by people in their administration long before Abu Graib. In fact, it can be deduced that Abu Graib was simply a local implementation of interrogation instructions that went out to all the places holding captured Iraqis, and Al Quedas.

    The rest of the article is interesting, a doctor who specializes in rehabilitation of torture victims discusses what is done and what effect it has. There is also more discussion on torture and why we do it. It's not the troops, it's the Justice Department and the Defense Department, with authorization from the highest level.

    Why haven't those people been indicted??


    Just FY: It was the JAG lawyers (none / 0) (#74)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    who started putting the brakes on BushCo.

    Rarely have I felt I honestly owed so much to the armed forces.


    Yes, which is why I said that it was (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    the DOJ lawyers who pushed for the torture and the Defense Dept. aka Rumsfeld, who pushed it through the chain of command. The JAG is not in the chain of command, so they would have been involved peripherally, not immediately. It was Gonzales and Rumsfeld enabling Bush and Cheney in their desire to torture people.

    I agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    just wanted to share. I literally got a warm and fuzzy feeling when I first heard the BBC report on the military lawyers fighting for defendants rights.

    Some people seem to know what its about.


    The military swears to uphold and defend (none / 0) (#105)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So being a lawyer in the military makes it doubly meaningful, I am sure. The JAG officers are fulfilling their oath, the President, who takes a very similar one at his inauguration, is not. The JAGs seem to realize that. Too bad they aren't in Congress.

    And they DID!!!! (none / 0) (#107)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM EST
    Rarely have I felt I owed so much.....

    Speaking of the Constitution (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    And JAG officer can run for Congress.

    Or do you want to appoint them??


    Yes, they can run, but (none / 0) (#121)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    if they are in the military, they obviously aren't in Congress at the moment, now are they??

    And your point is what? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:47:24 AM EST
    That they are supposed to enforce laws??

    That's not their jobs.


    There is a lot more in this memo than (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    merely the grounds for tossing Yoo out of a stinking job.

    I've been skimming the whole thing as it came out of my printer.  I have to say that just about every sentence of it has at least one major logical error or fallacy within it, all directed at making the Executive supreme, and negating the Constitution.

    Moreover, the memo is a gold mine of leads into other memoranda supporting or facilitating the dictatorial project the Bushies have taken on.  Like, for instance, the one from Yoo's pen dated October 23, 2001, in which Yoo discusses how the Fourth Amendment does not apply when the military undertakes operations, even within the United States.  To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever heard of that memo (with the possible exception of Lichtblau.

    This memo deserves to be parsed and sieved in considerable detail - more than the DoJ USA firing documents were over at TPM. There is that much in this memo.

    And, yes, it is that big a pile of steaming legal malpractice, too.

    The part I love (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:22:46 PM EST
    is where he says something about the dividing line between torture and not torture is whether it "shocks the conscience."

    HHAHAHAHHAHAH!  WHOSE conscience?  These people don't have any conscience.  Nothing would shock them.

    (groan, My country tis of thee...)


    scribe, I was wondering (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:28:33 PM EST
    This particular Yoo memo makes reference to numerous other memos, perhaps as a CYA. Do you know, if any 'legal action' can be taken prior to all the attendant memos being released?

    The most stunning part of it for me was (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:13:27 PM EST

    Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion,"

    Ok, so the treaties we have signed and that were ratified by the Senate and which have the force of law, now don't if Bush says so?? Oh, I don't think so!!!

    What part of the Constitution do these people need to have read to them?? ALL OF IT!!! I don't think this is a "start", I think it's a clear indication that this administration has been lawless in the extreme. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is telling people to ignore the law. And they should be prosecuted for it.

    Congress had diddled around while letting two of the biggest criminals on the planet continue in positions of power and now they have it in writing and still will not do anything. Forget about impeaching Bush and Cheney, impeach Congress for dereliction of duty. BushCo has been pissing on the Constitution for eight years and all Congress does is tread water. Disgusting. They should ALL be replaced.

    Does anybody know (none / 0) (#21)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:36:10 PM EST
    whether any of this comes under the jurisdiction of The International Criminal Court? I was looking at this quote from Yoo's memo: "Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion."

    International Criminal Court (none / 0) (#30)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    Thing is, the US has consistently refused to consent to be subject to it.

    Per Human Rights Watch:

    First, the Bush administration negotiated a Security Council resolution to provide an exemption for U.S. personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping operations. *

    Second, the Bush administration is requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements ("impunity agreements" or so-called "Article 98 agreements") is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction. They also lead to a two-tiered rule of law for the most serious international crimes: one that applies to U.S. nationals; another that applies to the rest of the world's citizens. *

    Thirdly, the U.S Congress has assisted the Bush administration's effort to obtain bilateral impunity agreements. The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:

        * a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
        * an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;
        * punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);
        * a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.

    However, all of these provisions are off-set by waiver provisions that allow the president to override the effects of ASPA when "in the national interest". The waiver provisions effectively render ASPA meaningless.


    Joe (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:45:02 AM EST
    you desperately need to look up who is on the UN's so-called "Human Rights Commission."

    Dont distract him (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    from Hannity's talking point, or he'll start blathering about how we need to start drilling in the Arctic.

    Those who must depend 100% (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    on others delivering them food should be concerned about fuel and price.

    Oh wait. I know what the Left said.

    "Food is."

    Sure. Uh huh.


    If you can't figure it out (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:07 AM EST
    why should I??

    You are not a mind reader?? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:49:35 AM EST
    Who knew?

    It doesn't matter guys (none / 0) (#76)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    the US has refused to consent to the IPCC.

    They started to refuse consent under Reagan, and have been consistent since.

    Look at it this way: It's the one lesson the GOP really did take away from Vietnam. Kissinger would have been held accountable under the Hague for what happened in Cambodia, so they made sure that wouldn't happen for any future Kissinger like figures to arise.

    My favorite part is the "we can invade Hague"part. That takes balls.

    Still, logistically it does come down to a how many legions does the Pope have...

    Morally the US should honor the court. It would show leadership.


    I haven't read the memos yet... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:38:44 PM EST
    ...but customary international law refers to norms and habitual practices that create legal obligations, not to treaties, although the latter may incorporate it.  

    Never mind customary international law (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    we are signatory to several treaties that specifically mention and forbid torture, including the Geneva Convention, Accords, etc. They are signed and ratified treaties. The Geneva Convention, contrary to popular mis-information, does not specify that it is in force only among its signatories. In other words, if you signed it, you don't torture even if the other guy does. Period. That means that it is illegal for the US, or any of its employees, military, whether here or abroad, to torture anyone. There is no grey area at all. It is black and white, signed and ratified. It is the law.

    First of all (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    define torture.

    There are many of us who do not consider water boarding torture.

    That it should be used only in dire circumstances is a given.


    Drowning dosnt leave (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    marks. That's the only reason -- other than complete. abject obedience -- that "many of us dont consider it torture."

    There a specific definition of torture (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    existing in federal statutory law.

    It includes threatening with death, or pretending to threat with death.

    I believe drowning to the point of almost no return and then reviving fits into that category.

    I believe drowning to a point less than the the point of almost no return fits that category.

    Waterboarding isn't simulated drowning. It is drowning someone, then pulling them back from the brink.


    Believe what you like. (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    Santa Claus exists, or that the radical Moslem terrorists have no desire to kill you.

    But the facts don't change.


    The facts are (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    death and threats of death for the purposes of obtaining information are illegal under US law.

    They have been for some time. US military commanders have been prosecuted and convicted for waterboarding in the past. We have also prosecuted the other side for "crimes against humanity" when waterboarding has been used against us.


    heh (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    US military commanders have been prosecuted and convicted for waterboarding in the past.



    Really?? So if you came over to (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    my house, and I decided to have a little fun with you, you wouldn't mind? Strap you to a board, dunk you or pour over you a lot of water so you think you are drowning, rinse and repeat. Oh, and don't forget the Saran wrap around your head to keep you from actually drowning, well, if I decide to let you have that. It's more fun to watch you almost drown for real. I mean, that's not torture, right?? It's extreme watersports!! WHEEEEEE!! See you in the pool, fool.

    Disclaimer: I do not believe in torture and I DO think waterboarding is torture. However, the above offer is open to any one who doesn't think waterboarding is torture.


    Your teenage logic is on full display (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    Here are some earlier comments I made on the subject.

    Re: Gonzales Suggests Revisiting Geneva Convention (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 07:24:29 AM EST

    DonS -.... So, I will ask you specifically what I asked at 6:23PM on 1/6/05. What is wrong with reviewing the GC with an eye towards bringing it into the 21st century, and more accurately defining who is, and is not, protected.....


    Channeling becomes you. (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:07:55 AM EST

    As I said in an earlier comment on another thread,
    I would restrict waterboarding to situations when the information looked for is time sensitive and will save lives.

    A definition (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:49:59 PM EST

    Waterboarding is not torture.
    Neither is temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, aggressive sexual displays (bare breasts, women's panties on the head, etc.)

    This is torture.

    The leader of Moslems, some perfect example of a Moslem named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and his worshipers took almost a minute using a dull knife to saw off the head of Nick while he screamed and they shouted that God is Great! His screams bubbled through blood squirting from his carotid arteries. He managed to scream for his life 9 times in about 30 seconds before they destroyed his vocal cords with the dull knife. This great leader of Moslems took delight in it. No Moslems in America demonstrated in front of the White House or anywhere else or made threats to retaliate against the perps who did this and that makes me think they approve of it.
    What does it feel like when they've cut half way through the front of your neck then change their minds and start to saw through the back of your neck while your spinal cord transmits every single cut, slice, and laceration of that dull blade to your helpless brain....


    Now. If you want to argue that these people deserve the protection of the GC, argue away. But if they do, then they can not be released until the hostilities are over and they may be tried for crimes they have committed that are forbidden soldiers.

    If you want to claim they are unlawful combatants then they may be tried for their crimes and/or released. Previously those considered "unlawful combatants," aka "gorillas," were shot/hung. It appears that we have become gentler.

    Your choice.


    Two wrongs don't make a right.. (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    so your argument is specious. It is akin to saying that since John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people after having sex with them that killing only five and not  having sex with them is just fine and perfectly civilized.

    May I point out that the people you are so caustically deriding are defending their country against invaders. You seem to have the idea that we are in the right as far as Iraq is concerned. You are wrong, we are not. We invaded a country to steal their oil, never mind the rest of the BS 9/11 spin that Bush put on it. And while I do not condone or agree with the methods that some of the Iraqis use to get rid of us, I do understand them. And beheading, while barbaric to western eyes, is still a usual form of execution in the Middle East.

    The people you describe are not part of a government policy by a country that claims to take the high road on human rights and has the unmitigated gall to call China on their human rights record while torturing people in Guantanamo. At least the Iraqis aren't acting all holier than thou about it. They are putting it on the table.

    If you don't think that Abu Graib had an effect in Iraq, and that the Iraqis didn't see the same images on the internet that we did, you are a fool. And they know about Guantanamo too. We started it, and we got down and dirty a long time before they did.

    So stop complaining about the other guy and get the home boys to stop acting like they work for Torquemada. Then you will have a leg to stand on regarding torture and what it is. Right now, you don't.


    First of all (1.00 / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    many of the terrorists are not Iraqi.

    Secondly, how does killing innocent men, women and children.... who are Iraqi....by the use of car bombs and suicide bombers, some of who are children and some of who are mentally challenged females help get rid of "invaders?"

    What is happening there is simple. Radical moslem terrorists are/were attempting to terrify Iraqi citizens into submission to their clan, sect or whatever. You know that and your failure to acknowledge it defines you.

    And please provide links to torture at Gitmo.

    As for "stealing" their oil, the fact the gasoline is at $3.20 a gallon makes that statement outrageously funny.

    Besides, if we have wanted to steal their oil we would have moved in with a quick strike, secured the oil bearing areas, bombed the rest of the country back to 700AD and would be taking what we want.

    As for your high road, catch a clue. We are in a war for survival. Be glad someone will do the dirty work so you can posture.


    Actually, that is pretty much what we did.. (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    except for one flaw in the plan. This..

    Besides, if we have wanted to steal their oil we would have moved in with a quick strike, secured the oil bearing areas, bombed the rest of the country back to 700AD and would be taking what we want.
    is what we did. And the flaw was that the morons who came up with this plan figured the Iraqis would be oh so glad to see us and hand over their assets without a fight. They weren't and they aren't.

    The reason we have high prices is that the oil companies crank the price of a gallon everytime the price of oil creeps up, even if the oil they are selling at that time wasn't bought at that price. It takes months for oil to get from the barrel it is bought as to gas stations. But the price always reflects what the market in barrels is currently rather than what it was when the oil was bought. That is how Exxon, and other oil companies, make billions in profit per quarter.  

    And as for survival, if we could harness the energy of the hot air that is emanating from you, we could run a whole city. What we need to do is seriously start converting to renewable resources such as solar and wind and decrease our use of carbon-emission fuels. That won't happen with the Republicans in power, they are owned by the corporations, and they put profit over the people every time.

    And as for survival as a civilization, well, perhaps if we started acting like we are civilized then we will. If we don't, we won't. The thing is that the terrorists do not speak, or act, for all Muslims. But until our foreign policy changes and becomes less two-faced, we are going to have problems in the Middle East. Of course, you are apparently too ignorant to see beyond the screaming of a few fanatics, so you go ahead, get ready for "the big war". I will keep on trying to fix the cause of the problem instead of escalating it into mass murder. Killing is not an answer to a political problem. It never has been. You seem to be too stupid to see that.


    heh (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:15:29 AM EST
    The reason we have high prices is that the oil companies crank the price of a gallon everytime the price of oil creeps up, even if the oil they are selling at that time

    I see that you don't understand economics. The gasoline they are selling today must be replaced with gasoline made from crude they are buying today. So the price of oil products must follow the price of crude on the up side. On the down side, the cost basis of what is being sold today is what it was when it was purchased. Sell it for less and you loose money. Companies that lose money go out of business.

    I have no love for the oil industry and would cheerfully insist that they drill for more oil in ANWAR and other places in the US, and limit their ability to export diesel, gasoline and other oil products along with building refineries.

    As for my hot air, please feel free to develop a use if you have the capability. I do find it amusing that you complain about the present price of energy and then advocate that we replace it with products that are expensive, unreliable and remove food products from the market.

    And I would remind you that the dreaded Baptists haven't attacked Medina, Tehran, etc. As for those  "few" fanatics, they seem to be in control of Iran, Syria..... etc...


    You seem to take my endorsement of (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:59:03 AM EST
    alternative fuels as being for ethanol. No, I am not for ethanol. For one thing, it has to be mixed with gasoline to burn properly, and I don't believe in using food to run cars with. I think it's a crime. I think we should all switch to electric cars, electric trains with only semis being allowed to use petrol of any kind. And yes, I do have ideas on how to produce the amount of electricity needed without fossil fuels. But I am not going to waste them on you. Pearls before swine, and all.

    Here's your chance (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    I think we should all switch to electric cars, electric trains

    I think that would be a wonderful thing and look forward to when it can happen. Unfortunately, the technology doesn't exist. Can you imagine the power requirements of, say, 10,000,000 cars all plugged up and needing power at say, 7PM in southern CA??

    Tell you what. We're way off subject. If you really know something and want to prove it, come over to Tall Cotton and lay it out. I'll create a post for you.


    "Temperature extremes" (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    positions, sexual or otherwise etc cant be in anyway usefully conflated with drowning a person.

    But, you either knew that already or you're just a moron who cant think for himself. Which is it?


    Dearest Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:47:24 PM EST
    I see that you haven't improved either your intelligence, or your mouth. Here is a definition of torture that Repack Rider gave us a while back. And one that you did not agree with.

    Define torture. (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    Guess we best be letting the terrorists out since I definitely wouldn't want to be locked up.

    BTW - Do you understand that if I write:

    An apple is red.
    An orange provides us with orange juice.

    I have not fused anything? Or are you just a moron?


    SCOTUS told Bush that (none / 0) (#28)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:04:51 AM EST
    Yoo is a bad lawyer to have even thought he could argue around it.

    Nevermind the fact that it's evil. It's bad lawyering.


    SMJ, what is the recourse? (none / 0) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:36:42 AM EST
    Somebody upstream mentioned legal malpractice in Yoo's crafting of these torture memos. That's been said before with respect to Gonzalez, and others in the DOJ. I know nothing of the legalities, or the protocol, beyond the Wiki definition.

    We need Jeralyn here tonight.


    Yeah, we need her (none / 0) (#40)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:48:11 AM EST
    She could know a few specifics.

    Off the top of my head, he could be fired from his professorship, and he could be disbarred (if not for this memo and professional malfeasance, the bar could find something else).

    The recourse unfortunately was impeachment and investigative hearings until Pelosi took it off the table. I understand why she did (I think), but it's still frustrating.

    Criminal liability may not be in the picture. Bush has a pardon pen he can use at will at the end of his term (as his father did for ContraGate). And as a lawyer, he may be indemnified against bad legal advice, unless someone comes up with a creative way to sue that the courts will accept.

    Take heart, though. Dems have long memories. Justice Bork, the guy the cons scream about the Dems blocking from becoming a Supreme Court Justice? Well, he's the guy who co-operated with Nixon and fired the special prosecutor back during Watergate after his boss, and his boss's boss resigned rather than do it.

    Not much, but we can at least make sure the guy doesn't have much of a career.


    Thanks again SMJ et al. G'nite. (none / 0) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:54:22 AM EST
    Nite (none / 0) (#46)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:56:38 AM EST
    The Bar Could (none / 0) (#52)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    But would the bar want to dig around and find something?  I just don't see it happening.  Yoo (and I haven't read it all) is nuts, but none of this rises to disbarment, at least not to me.  Reprimand?  Sure.

    Always possible (none / 0) (#77)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    I was just outlining scenarios.

    The bar may try, but there may be political allies of Yoo who prevent it (which is why I put in finding something else). But that may be something that never happens.

    These are all just "possibles". The one, in my opinion, most likely is that Yoo is never confirmed to any fed post (should he be appointed) if the Dems have anything to say about it.

    UC Berkeley may never fire him, and he may end up his life in a cozy professorship.

    The best recourse would have been the investigations required during an impeachment hearing. We will see more investigation (if Waxman has anything to do with it), and we shall see what the fallout is.


    PS: professional malfeasance (none / 0) (#78)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    ie, telling the president he could ignore the law when he obviously couldn't. Not sure I see the bar acting on it.... but it could be used as the reason.

    I know a guy who took his student loans, invested in the stock market, got rich, then paid for law school himself and passed the bar the first time.

    He was denied the right to practice because it showed "bad moral character".

    He was obviously not as connected as Yoo is, and that makes the difference.


    That's what I was thinking (none / 0) (#93)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    I'm terribly sorry about your friend and I think in that case it must have had a lot to do with connections.  In fact, that's the most extreme example I've heard of any state bar making "bad moral character" judgments before the person even begins to practice.  I've seen/heard examples of the bad moral character determination, but they're almost always attached to some much larger form of malfeasance, and usually used as an aggravator.  Clearly, if Yoo expressly advised the President not to follow the law we would be talking about a serious ethics violation.  While I think Yoo's memo is a violation of human, not to mention legal ethics, he seems to have a pretty good argument that he's just offering a "creative" legal opinion.

    I (none / 0) (#95)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:42:47 PM EST
    Should make that clearer: I think Yoo has committed misconduct.  But for the sake of this discussion, I think Yoo can make a good (wingnut) argument that simply offering the opinion that certain laws do not apply in certain situations to the Chief Executive...you know the rest.  It's very easy to muddy the waters in these kinds of cases.

    About my friend... (none / 0) (#103)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    don't waste your sympathy.

    He's doing okay.

    It will come down to politics, and lawyers like to play politics.


    My point... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    ...is that customary international law does not have the same status as a treaty.  The laws of war were customary before the Geneva Conventions and other treaties codified them.  It is more of an academic point than anything else.  Like I said, I haven't read the memo and I don't know what that context was.

    you're correct, as far as you went. (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:04:19 AM EST
    the "customary rules of war", evolved over the course of some 3,500 years of humans butchering each other for fun, profit and land were essentially incorporated into the original geneva conventions (no intentional attacks on unarmed civilians, no summary executions of POW's, etc).

    the conventions have been updated to incorporate standards for dealing with informal military groups (guerillas, etc.) as well as recognizing new and more lethal forms of weapons. anyone who is a signature to these conventions agrees to abide by them, regardless of what the other party does. hence, we were required to abide by them, even though N. Korea, not a signature, didn't.

    this is the law in the US, the president doesn't have the authority, all by his lonesome, to ignore it. he does so at risk of impeachment, as well as increased danger to our own troops.

    pelosi (for reasons i'm still not clear on) took that option off he table. however, she can't take the fact that institutional failure to abide by the geneva conventions constitutes a war crime off the table, she doesn't have that authority.


    So, how does that apply here? (none / 0) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:47:54 PM EST
    i was responding to this: (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    It is more of an academic point than anything else.

    it isn't just an academic point. the geneva conventions are considered part of our law, anyone in violation of them would be considered a criminal. that yoo blithely ignores this, and asserts, absent any historical legal precedence, that in time of war, the president has virtually unfettered powers, lays the groundwork for both yoo and the president to be charged as war criminals.

    as well, he also blithely ignores the fact that only congress has the authority to declare war, and it hasn't done so against either afghanistan or iraq.

    hardly just an academic point.


    That was me... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    ...and I was referring to my own post discussing the difference between treaties and customary international law.  As I have said now (at least twice) I have not read the Yoo memo.  I was just pointing out that customary international law is not the same as binding treaties.  I have no idea what that sentence was saying when it is lifted out of context.

     It is an academic point because it doesn't matter.  There are treaties in place.


    John Marshall is rolling in his grave (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST

    Yoo give more power to George Bush (none / 0) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:19:53 AM EST
    than any colonial in 1776 would have recognized for George III.

    And yes I am taking into account the Tories.


    Are you also (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM EST
    including the IRS? EPA?

    Can you imagine telling Franklin  that his stove could only be used on "low" pollution days?

    Telling Jefferson that his horses must get 25 miles per pound of feed??


    Jefferson would have complained (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    about the federalization of horses, publicly, and complied privately.

    He was about getting as much political mileage as he could out of every issue he could use against the other party.

    Franklin? Well, he would have said "Really?" Then he would have set about building a more efficient stove.

    The founders were not anarchists. They were nation builders.


    Oh really? (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Since both are dead I assume you are channeling them.

    Could you ask Ben for the name of a good hotel in Paris??


    It burned down (none / 0) (#104)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    in 1792.

    Do you ever read what they wrote?

    They are worth the study.

    They were not anarchists. Yes, we had a revolution, and it was a real one, but it was successful because these guys were into nation-building.


    And your point is what?? (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    No one said they weren't into nation building.

    Nice try at changing the subject but no cigar.


    Who needs books? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    The man has A.M talk radio.

    Its related to (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    something called the growth of information/knowledge over time.

    Of course, that probobly wouldnt mean much to the quarter that thinks the coming Rapture should be factored into foreign policy considerations.


    Oh, really? (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    Does that mean that you agree with me that both would be for nuclear power and recognize that man made global warming is a swindle??

    Your response is a non-sequitur (none / 0) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    Of course its been my longstanding observation that you are a monarchist and that there are no limits to executive power exercised by Bush.

    I am not sure what you are trying to say about the IRS or EPA and I suspect you don't know either.


    Based on your past comments (1.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    I would say I know more about both than you do about Medicare...

    Now. What was your point???


    I doubt it (none / 0) (#99)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    Over the last two years you have displayed a remarkable ignorance of or hatred for our American traditions and values.

    Time and again you have endorsed monarchism.


    LOL. Medicare? (none / 0) (#106)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    I seriously doubt that.

    Seriously. You have no idea what my resume is.....


    And I have no doubt (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:19:56 AM EST
    that you have problems figuring out who a comment is for.

    Try "nested."


    "beacon of human rights" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Andreas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:38 AM EST
    Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy still does not understand. He writes:

    threatens our country's status as a beacon of human rights around the world.

    That "beacon" is not "threatened". It was successfully eliminated by both the Republicans and the Democrats. The US is now considered as one of the main organisers of torture around the world.

    Stanford must be proud... (none / 0) (#2)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:32:13 PM EST
    and in less than a year, they can have Condi back too!

    Liberal media, liberal universities...liberals everywhere.

    on a practical note, (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    i have to wonder if pres. bush, citing this memo, told the troops in both afghanistan and iraq that, since we weren't going to honor our geneva convention obligations, they might want to consider the "poison pill option", should they be captured in either locale, by enemy (whoever that enemy happened to be) forces, since they most likely wouldn't receive the niceties of geneva convention protections either?

    my guess, probably not.

    i love it when they care so much for the troops, they glibly put them in even greater potential danger, strictly for their convenience.

    if john yoo's smart, he'll always be looking over his shoulder, for that po'd ex-pow coming up behind him.

    Come now cp (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    Can you name me a US prisoner that has survived capture in Afghanistan and/or Iraq??

    You can't.

    Even non-combatants, see David Pearl have had their heads sawed off...

    When you are dealing with people who believe in stoning women for alleged infidelity... who machine gun girls on the way to school... who believe that fathers and brothers have the right to kill daughters and mothers who they think have dishonored the family... i.e. The MALES of the family.... well, do you think you can do ANYTHING to turn them into kinder and gentler people?

    cp, your BDS is showing.... again.


    and your racing them to the bottom (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by po on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:50 AM EST
    judging from your comments here, your only solution is to lower yourself to their level with the glib belief that the ends always justify the means.  Masquerading as a "patriot" you likely believe that might make right and that the United States is free to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants.  That's not how civilized society operates; and it's certainly not how a government of the People, by the People, for the People is suppose to operate when it follows the law -- domestic and international.  The idea that the President can do whatever s/he wants because they believe it's "wartime" is preposterous and brings us back to time before the Magna Carta.  

    Yoo should be disbarred and UCB should fire him -- today.  He's got no business teaching law to anyone if this is the product of his practice.  And any sane, rational, thinking person who believed the crap he wrote should face the consequences of their actions.  Here in the United States laws ostensibly apply and violating them has consequences -- willful ignorance of the law or wishful thinking that the law really means something it doesn't is no defense.


    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    I am just noting some of their better qualities and stating that what we do in this matter will not change their actions one iota.

    Catch a clue. This isn't WWII and your wistful thinking will not make it so. However, it will make life easier for the terrorists by removing some of the methods, specifically water boarding, that has proven effective in breaking their will.


    Uhh... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    ...one of the strategic reasons we originally rejected those methods in the first place was because of our experience in the Korean War.  There were an awful lot of "confessions" recorded by American soldiers in both of our Asian Cold War conflicts.  If you recall, John McCain wrote one.

     Even if you believe (contrary to our binding law, history and fundamental values) that this is not torture, there is no support for the proposition that they have produced reliable evidence.  Unless one has blind faith in this truth-deprived administration.  


    Nope. You need to read more. (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    There are numerous methods by which information
    can be checked for accuracy. Plus we have this information.

    In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

    "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

    "From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

    I do love that "visit from Allah" comment. Perhaps Allah was wanting to go water skiing.



    Whats the point? (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    What we do wont change their actions one iota.

    They're still going to make their way to red Colorado and jump out at you from under your bed.


    If its not too wet (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    down there.

    probably because only one person was captured (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by PastorAgnostic on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    even that make believe fairy tale involving that female soldier turned out to be a crock of embarrassing proportions.

    This is more and more the Barnum and Bailey war, and America is the sucker.


    Don't change the subject (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    As you know very well we were discussing the actions of the terrorists, not the Iraqi army.

    As for the female in question, at least she was brave enough to have served her country? Did you?

    And we do have this:

    BATAVIA, OHIO -- The military has recovered the remains of Staff Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin, listed as missing-captured in Iraq since 2004, the soldier's father said Sunday.


    And then we have this:

    ....were viciously killed and their corpses mutilated by a mob in Fallujah, Iraq --The four men killed Wednesday were providing security for a convoy delivering U.S. government food.

    You may remember the above caused quite a bit of stir based on some untoward comments by some on the Left.

    And then we had the beheading of Nick Berg... If you listen you can hear him screaming.

    It is evident you don't know what you speak of.


    part of the problem is that the (none / 0) (#136)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    Iraqi Military IS the insurgent group.

    I am not insulting you, please try restraining yourself in a similar fashion.

    The underlying problem is that there is no good or bad side in Iraq. They all have arguments (ones they feel are irrefutable) in favor and against other sects and groups. They all feel like their side is the true Iraq, even the Kurds up north. For us to pick and choose one over another, well, that is evidence that our government knows not what they speak of.

    Question. is it common to be rude to new members, or is it just you? Haven't seen much of that here before, and that was what attracted me.


    BDS (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    describes anyone who voted for that ignorant douchebag.

    yoo suck, sir. (none / 0) (#61)
    by PastorAgnostic on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    sorry for the painfully obvious.
    Mr. Yoo has done incredible damage to our country. It will take a generation to fix it, and quite probably at least several show trials.

    What is worse, is he continues to believe that he was correct and that his view is the right one. That is the problem with someone being completely  convinced that they are right, that their ideas are the only right ones, and that any critics are the enemy.

    Funny. We have a democrat running in the similar mode. Maybe not so funny.